IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 706 of 2009()
1. RAGHAVAN, AGED 57, S/O.
... Petitioner
2. SANTHAMMA W/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 51, DO-DO-
3. MAYA, D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 31,DO-DO-
Vs
1. REJI ABRAHAM, SASTHAMKOVIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. TIBY JOSEPH, CHERIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before
us. They are the father and mother aged 54 years and 48 years
and the married sister of a deceased person who was aged 26
years at the time of his death. He suffered injuries in a motor
accident on 07.09.2005 and succumbed to those injuries later on
the same day. He was allegedly employed as a rubber tapper. It
was claimed that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-.
An amount of Rs.8 lakhs was claimed as compensation. Before
the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A6 were
marked. Ext.A5 is the salary certificate of the deceased which
shows that the deceased was employed by a private individual
who had issued that certificate and he was getting an amount of
Rs.3,300/- by way of monthly salary and Rs.50/- as allowance per
day in addition to festival allowances.
2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the
relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing
M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 2
payment of a total amount of Rs.2.61 lakhs along with interest @
7% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment.
The break up of the said award is given below.
i) Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/-
ii) Expenses for
transportation : Rs. 1,000/-
iii) Damage to clothing
and articles : Rs. 1,000/-
iv) Loss of love and
affection : Rs. 10,000/-
v) Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/-
vi) Compensation for
loss of dependency
(3,000 X = X 12 X 13): Rs.2,34,000/-
...................
Total : Rs.2,61,000/-
...................
3. The appellants claimed to be aggrieved by the
impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the
challenge which the appellants want to mount against the
impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants
challenges the correctness of the quantum of compensation
awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal
had reckoned Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. This is
M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 3
incorrect. Rs.4,000/- must have been reckoned as the monthly
income, contends the counsel. Ext.A5 salary certificate is relied
on. The author of that certificate has not been examined. Even
going by that certificate, Rs.3,300/- is the monthly salary. In
these circumstances we are of the opinion that the Tribunal
committed no error warranting appellate interference in
accepting only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income.
4. It is then contended that only 13 has been accepted as
the multiplier. Going by the age of the deceased, 18 must have
been taken as the multiplier. Going by the age of the father 11
alone need be taken as the multiplier going by the second
schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Going by the age of the
mother the Tribunal had accepted the multiplier at 13. It is
contended that multiplier applicable to the deceased must have
been accepted. We find no merit in this contention. The claim is
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The multiplier to
be adopted is that of the older of the 2 persons – deceased and
claimant. The Tribunal according to us committed no error in
accepting the multiplier applicable to the mother, the elder
person and who is younger in age than the other claimant, ie.
M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 4
father aged 54 years. The adoption of the multiplier at 13 does
not, in these circumstances, call for any appellate interference.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the Tribunal deducted half of the monthly income as expenses of
the deceased and has reckoned only a balance amount as
contribution to the claimants. We are of the opinion that the
Tribunal has committed no error in taking that approach. It may
be idle to assume that 2/3 of the amount would have been
received by the parents as contribution from a young unmarried
person like the deceased. In this case we further note that the
Tribunal had not taken into reckoning the imminent possibility of
marriage of the deceased who was aged 26 years and the
possibility of depletion of contribution to the parents thereafter.
It would only be reasonable to approach the question from that
angle. The Tribunal appears to have taken half of the present
earning as the average contribution for all the remaining years
of dependency. Any alleged inadequacy in reckoning only 50%
as the contribution is nullified and neutralised by the fact that
for the entire remaining period of the multiplier (13 minus 2) the
same amount has been accepted as contribution by the Tribunal.
M.A.C.A No.706 of 2009 5
In any view of the matter, we are unable to agree that the
impugned award warrants interference on this ground. No other
ground of challenge is raised.
6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
rtr/-