IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 211 of 2008()
1. P.SANKARANKUTTY MENON, AGED 71 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. C.SUMATHI, AGED 63 YEARS,
3. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. C.J.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. E.V.JOHNY, S/O.ULAHANNAN,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.RAJESH THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: FEBRUARY 17, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
The claimants in OP(MV) 3227/1999 of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ernakulam are the appellants in this appeal filed under
sec,173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They have claimed a compensation
of Rs.5 lakhs for the loss sustained by them on account of the death of
one Gopakumar in a motor accident. Appellants 1 and 2 are his
parents and the 3rd appellant is the brother of the deceased. The
Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,47,300/-. In this appeal
they have challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
2. The facts in brief are these: On May 24, 1999 at about 7.30
a.m. deceased Gopakumar was pillion riding on a motorcycle along
Tripunithura – Poothota road. When he reached near the Hill Palace
Police Station, a bus driven by the 2nd respondent came at a high
speed from behind and dashed against the motorcycle. Gopakumar
fell on the road side and the tyre of the bus ran over him. He died on
the way to the hospital. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time
of the accident and was working as a Machine Operator in the Tata
M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E
2
Tetley Ltd. and getting a monthly salary of Rs.2500/-. The claimants
have claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Respondents 1 and 2, the
owner and the driver of the offending bus remained absent and were
set ex parte. The 3rd respondent Insurer of the offending vehicle
admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance
policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The 4th respondent, the
insurer of the motorcycle, would contend that the accident occurred
solely due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the
bus.
3. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants
and the contesting 3rd respondent. On the side of the claimants,
Exts.A1 to A17 were marked. On the side of the contesting 3rd
respondent, Ext.B1 was marked.
4. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending bus by the 2nd respondent and granted a compensation of
Rs.1,47,300/-. The 4th respondent, the insurer of the motorcycle
involved in the accident, was exonerated from the liability. The
claimants have challenged the quantum of compensation in this
appeal.
5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether
M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E
3
the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation.
6. The accident is not disputed. It is also not challenged that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending bus by the 2nd respondent and that the offending bus was
covered by a valid insurance policy with the 3rd respondent Insurance
Company.
7. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as follows:
Transportation Rs. 2,500/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,500/-
Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of dependency Rs.1,22,300/-
------------------------
Total Rs.1,47,300/-
=============
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court
has taken the monthly contribution of the deceased as one half of his
salary which is not proper and that as the deceased was aged only 28
years, the multiplier adopted as 8 by the Tribunal is very low. It is
not disputed that the deceased was employed as a Workshop Manager
in Tata Tetley Ltd. and was drawing a salary of Rs.2500/- per month.
It is also proved by Ext.A17 salary certificate. The Tribunal has
deducted one-third of it for his personal expenses and another one-
third on the ground that after marriage his contribution to his parents
M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E
4
would be much less, but made a deduction of only one-half of the
salary. This approach appears to be not correct in view of the
principles laid down in Sarla Varma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another {2009 (6) SCC 121}. We feel that towards
the personal expenses of the deceased, a deduction of one-third of his
salary can be allowed. No further deduction, in our view, is proper
taking into consideration the future prospects of his promotion in his
employment. Thus considered, after making a deduction of one-third
from his salary, his contribution to his family per month would be
Rs.1700/- per month.
9. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 8 which, in our view, is
very low. He was aged only 28 at the time of the accident. Though
claimants 1 and 2 are aged 63 and 58 at the time of the accident, the
3rd claimant was aged only 25. Taking into consideration all these
aspects, we feel that a multiplier of 12 would be reasonable in this
case. Thus calculated, towards loss of dependency, the claimants
would be entitled to Rs.2,44,800/- (1700 x 12 x 12). Thus, towards
loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.97,500/-. Regarding the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal under other heads, we find it to be reasonable.
Therefore we are not disturbing the same.
In the result, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an
M.A.C.A.211 of 2008-E
5
additional compensation of Rs.97,500/-. They are entitled to interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation. The 3rd respondent shall deposit the amount within one
month from this date. The appeal is disposed of as found above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-