IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1278 of 2010()
1. PUTHUKKOLLI FATHIMA, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED
... Petitioner
2. M.P.THASNEETH,D/O.LATE MOHAMMED ALI
3. M.P.MOHAMMED FAISAL,
4. M.P.YASIRA,D/O.LATE MOHAMMED ALI,
5. M.P.SUKAIRA, D/O.LATE MOHAMMED ALI,
6. P.K.MAMMATHUMA, D/O.POCKER,
7. ALAVI, S/O.MAYIN KURIKKAL,
8. MARIYUMMA, D/O.MAYIN KURIKKAL
9. FATHMA, D/O.MAYIN KURIKKAL,
10. KADEEJA, D/O.MAYIN KURIKKAL,
Vs
1. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY,
... Respondent
2. BHASKARAN, S/O.NADI,POTTAMMAL HOUSE,
3. UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :27/09/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A.No.1278 OF 2010.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Barkath Ali, J.
The appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)
No.1322/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Manjeri, who are the wife, children, mother,
brothers and sisters of deceased Mohammed Ali who died in
a motor accident which occurred on May 15, 2001 at about
8.00 am. The accident happened while the deceased was
walking along Manjeri-Malappuram road and when he
reached near Puspa Hotel he was knocked down by a Jeep
bearing registration No.KL-10A/4961. The deceased
sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries
sustained while undergoing treatment in Medical College
Hospital, Kozhikode. Alleging negligence against the
second respondent, the driver of the Jeep, the claimants
filed the OP before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the
M.A.C.A.No.1278/2010.
2
Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.
During the pendency of the OP, the 6th claimant died and her
legal heirs are impleaded as additional claimants 7 to 10.
2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the
offending jeep though entered appearance before the
Tribunal did not file any written statement. Respondent
No.3, the insurer of the offending jeep admitted the policy,
but denied the liability. Pws.1 and 2 were examined and
Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants
before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the
respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal
found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
second respondent and awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,98,259.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of
Rs.1,000/-. The claimants have now come up in appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
M.A.C.A.No.1278/2010.
3
3. Heard the counsel for the Appellants/claimants and
the counsel for the 3rd respondent, the Insurance Company.
4. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the
Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on
the part of the 2nd respondent is not challenged in the appeal.
Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is
whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced
compensation.
5. The break up of the compensation amount awarded
is as under:-
Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs. 2,500/-
Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/-
Medical expenses : Rs. 2,092/-
Loss of dependency
(16000 x 2 x 16) : Rs.1,70,667/-
3
----------------------
Total: Rs.1,98,259/-
----------------------
6. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of
the compensation awarded for the loss of dependency. The
M.A.C.A.No.1278/2010.
4
Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- per
year. After deducting 1/3rd of his personal income the
Tribunal took the balance amount as his yearly contribution
to his family and adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded
Rs.1,70,667/- for loss of dependency. The deceased was
aged 40 at the time of the accident and used to earn
Rs.4,500/- per month as a contractor, according to the
claimants. Taking into consideration the above aspect we
feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at
Rs.3,500/- which comes to Rs.42,000/- per annum. After
deducting 1/3rd from his personal expenses, the balance
amount of Rs.28,000/- per annum can be taken as his annual
contribution to his family. The multiplier of 16 adopted by
the Tribunal is not seriously disputed. Thus calculated, for
the loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.4,48,000/-. Thus the claimants are
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,77,333.00
(4,48,000.00 – 1,70,667.00) on this count. As regards the
M.A.C.A.No.1278/2010.
5
compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same
to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the
same.
7. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.2,77,333.00. They are entitled to
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent 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.
Kvs/-