IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2012 of 2007()
1. IMBICHI KOYA, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KUNHEEBI, AGED 48 YEARS,
3. AMINA, AGED 30 YEARS,
4. MUHAMMED ASKAR, (MINOR), AGED 6 YEARS,
5. ARSINA,(MINOR), AGED 6 YEARS,
Vs
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
For Respondent :SRI.LAL GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/06/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 2012 of 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 23, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the
claimants in OP(MV) 1361/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, who are the parents, widow and two
minor children of one deceased Muhammad Ali, challenge the
judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, May 14, 2007 awarding a
compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- for the loss caused to the claimants
on account of the death of Muhammad Ali in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: Deceased
Muhammad Ali was aged 29 at the time of the accident and used to
earn Rs.3500/- per month as a salesman, according to the claimants.
The claimants are his parents, wife and two minor children. On April
19, 2003 while the deceased was walking along the Bank road,
Kozhikode, he was knocked down by a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL 11 D/7241. He sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to
the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the Medical
College Hospital, Kozhikode on April 23, 2003. According to the
claimants the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of
M.A.C.A. 2012 of 2007 2
the 1st respondent, rider of the motorcycle. Respondent No.1 as the
owner-cum-rider and respondent No.2 as the Insurance Company are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants who
are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. The claimants
claimed a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs.
3. Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-rider of the offending
motorcycle, remained absent. Respondent No.2 , the insurer of the
offending motorcycle, filed a written statement admitting the policy
and further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the
1st respondent.
4. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimant
before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd
respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st
respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,73,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and
proportionate costs. The claimants have now come up in appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the
counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that
M.A.C.A. 2012 of 2007 3
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st
respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only
question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is
entitled to any enhanced compensation.
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,73,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as
under:-
dependency - Rs.2,52,000/-
pain and suffering - 5,000/-
medical expenses - 3,000/-
consortium - 10,000/-
funeral expenses - 2,000/-
transportation - 1,000/-
8. The Counsel for the appellants/claimants sought
enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency and for
the loss of love and affection. The Tribunal took the monthly income
of the deceased as Rs.1750/-, deducted 1/3rd for his personal
expenses, adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.2,52,000/- for
the loss of dependency. As the deceased was a salesman earning
Rs.3000/- per month, according to the claimants, we feel that his
monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3000/-. After deducting
1/3rd for his personal expenses, the balance Rs.2000/- can be taken as
M.A.C.A. 2012 of 2007 4
his contribution to his family. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal
is not seriously challenged in appeal. Thus calculated, for the loss of
dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.4,32,000/- (2000 x 12 x 18). Thus on this count the claimants are
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-.
9. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of
love and affection. Taking into consideration the tender age of the
children, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be
reasonable for the loss of love and affection. As regards the
compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be
reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.
10. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded
interest at the rate of 6% per annum which appears to be very low.
The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already
awarded and for the enhanced compensation and proportionate costs.
11. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation
of Rs.2,00,000/-. Claimants 1 and 2, the parents were aged 55 and
44 at the time of the accident. The 3rd claimant, the mother, has to
look after the children. Therefore their share of the compensation
awarded shall be released to them completely. The 2nd respondent
M.A.C.A. 2012 of 2007 5
being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount
before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the
above extent.
The appeal is disposed of as found above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-