IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1621 of 2008()
1. K.C.KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
2. SANTHA, W/O.KUMARAN
3. BABU, S/O.KUMARAN
4. SHEELA, D/O.KUMARAN
5. SHYLA, D/O.KUMARAN
6. SHEEJA, D/O.KUMARAN
Vs
1. SUNDARAN, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY,
... Respondent
2. GIRISH, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :24/05/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==
M.A.C.A. No. 1621 of 2008
=~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~==
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act claimants in O.P.(MV) No.594 of 2005 of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenge the
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 28,
2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,74,500/- for the loss
caused to the claimants, on account of the death of one
Shaji in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are
these:- Deceased Shaji was aged 24 at the time of the
accident. He was a Coconut Climber and was earning
Rs.4,000/- per month, according to the claimants. On
February 22, 2005 at about 8.30 p.m. Shaji was riding a
motor cycle. When he reached at Edamuttam Junction,
another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8-T 852,
ridden by the second respondent, came at a high speed
MACA 1621/2008 2
and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by Shaji. Shaji
sustained serious injuries and he died while undergoing
treatment in the hospital. The claimants are his parents,
brother and sisters. According to the claimants, the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending motor cycle by the second respondent. The
first respondent as the owner, second respondent as the
rider and third respondent as the insurer of the offending
motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and rider of the
offending motor cycle, filed a written statement, admitting
the accident, but contending that the accident occurred due
to negligence on the part of the deceased. The third
respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement,
admitting the policy.
4. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the
claimants and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the
respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the
MACA 1621/2008 3
Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence
on the part of the second respondent and awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,74,500/- with interest at the rate of
7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and
proportionate costs. The claimants have come up in appeal,
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the
Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence
on the part of the second respondent is not challenged in
this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for
consideration in this appeal is whether the claimants are
entitled to any enhanced compensation?
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,74,500/- The break up of the compensation awarded is
as under:-
Transportation : Rs. 1,000/-
Damages to clothing : Rs. 500/-
MACA 1621/2008 4
Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of dependency : Rs.1,28,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/-
------------------
Rs.1,74,500/-
========
8. The learned counsel for the claimants sought
enhancement of compensation awarded for loss of
dependency and for the loss of estate. The Tribunal took the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- and after
deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses Rs.16,000/- per
annum was taken as contribution to the family and adopted
a multiplier of 8 and awarded Rs.1,28,000/- for the loss of
dependency. The deceased was aged 24 at the time of the
accident. According to the claimants, he was a Coconut
Cliber. But, no evidence was adduced by them to prove the
same. Even then it was nobody’s case that the deceased was
not working at all. Even an unskilled labourer used to get
Rs.100/- per day, as observed by the Supreme Court in
Laxmi Devi and others V. Mohammad Tabbar and another,
2008 ACJ 1488. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income
MACA 1621/2008 5
of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at Rs.3,000/-. After
deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, balance amount
of Rs.2,000/- can be taken as his monthly contribution to his
family. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased
and the age of the parents of the deceased, we feel that a
multiplier of 10 would be reasonable in this case. Thus,
calculated for the loss of dependency claimants are entitled
to compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 10).
Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- on this count.
9. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which appears to be very low.
Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, we feel
that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on
this count. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to
an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Regarding the
compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same
to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the
same. Regarding the apportionment of the compensation
MACA 1621/2008 6
amount and disbursement of the same, the direction of the
Tribunal will stand.
10. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an
additional compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-. They are entitled
to interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. The third respondent being the insurer of the
offending motor cycle shall deposit the amount within two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment
before the Tribunal with notice to the claimants. The
claimants are entitled to proportionate costs.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found
above.
A.K.BASHEER,
JUDGE.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI,
JUDGE.
mn