IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1502 of 2006()
1. SHARADA, AGED 60 UYEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SHUBA, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.LATE AJAYAN,
3. ABHIRAM (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS,
4. ADITH (MINOR), AGED 4 1/2 YEARS,
Vs
1. M.C.ABOOBACKER, SARA NIVAS,
... Respondent
2. MANOJKUMAR, S/O.NANU,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
For Respondent :SRI.LAL GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 1502 OF 2006 A
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
Appellants are the petitioners in a petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They are the mother,
wife and two children of deceased Ajayan. Ajayan died
following a motor vehicle accident. The Appeal relates to the
quantum.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third
respondent Insurance Company. There is no dispute regarding
insurance coverage. Ajayan was a carpenter. According to the
appellants, he was earning Rs.4,500/= per month. A Certificate
is produced. PW1 employer was examined. He gave evidence
to the effect that Ajayan was earning Rs.4,500/= per month.
However, it is the first complaint of the appellants that the
MFA.1502/06 A 2
income is taken only at Rs.2,000/= per month. This is too
meagre, it is contended. Further, it is pointed out that only a
sum of Rs.20,000/= was awarded towards loss of love and
affection. It is pointed out that the supplemental fourth
petitioner was born after the death of Ajayan and this is not
factored into the compensation in this regard. It is also pointed
out that only Rs.5,000/= is given towards loss of consortium. It
is pointed out that the multiplier adopted is eleven and it is
pointed out that having regard to the age of the wife, the
multiplier should have been seventeen. Shri Lal George, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company would support the Award.
3. As far as the multiplier is concerned, we notice that the
multiplier applicable in a case of the wife would be seventeen.
But, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would
submit that if the multiplicand is on the higher side, the
multiplier can suitably be selected at a low rate. We would
think that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the
compensation could be characterised as just, if we adopt the
MFA.1502/06 A 3
multiplier of sixteen, provided we also suitably enhance the
amount to be fixed as the income of the deceased. It is not as if
there is no evidence regarding higher income canvassed by the
appellants. There was Certificate and what is more also, the
evidence of the employer to the effect that the deceased was
earning Rs.4,500/= per month. We must, in particular, keep in
mind the calling of the deceased. He was a carpenter. The date
of death is also crucial and it was in 2001. Having regard to the
totality of circumstances, we would think that we can take the
income available to the appellants as Rs.2,500/= per month.
Applying Rs.2,500/= as the contribution and the multiplier at
sixteen, the total amount due will be Rs.4,80,000/=. After
deducting the amount already awarded, the appellants are
entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,16,000/=. Regarding
loss of love and affection, we feel that the tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.20,000/=, which is adequate. So also, we are
not inclined, in the facts of this case, to award a further amount
towards loss of consortium. The appellants are entitled to
MFA.1502/06 A 4
realise a sum of Rs.2,16,000/= with interest at 7.5 per cent from
the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The amount
shall be shared in the same ratio as is ordered by the tribunal.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge