IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 143 of 2003()
1. SHRI.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHENNAN,
... Petitioner
2. SMT.SUMATHI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
Vs
1. SHRI.P.K.JOSE, S/O.DEVASSY,
... Respondent
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.143 OF 2003
-------------------------------------
Dated the 11th June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Koshy,J.
Appellants are the unfortunate parents of a 21 year old boy
who sustained injuries in a motor accident on 6.9.1996. Tribunal
found that accident occurred due to the negligence of the vehicle
insured by the 2nd respondent Insurance company and directed
the Insurance company to deposit a total amount of
Rs.1,48,800/-. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of
compensation fixed by the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, he was doing the work of
Aluminium fabrication and was getting a monthly income of
Rs.4,000/-. In the absence of any evidence to show that he was
getting Rs.4,000/- per month, tribunal fixed Rs.1,500/- as the
monthly income. There is no material to interfere with the
MFA.143/03 2
assessment of monthly income by the tribunal. Tribunal noticed
that even though deceased was 21 years old and 17 is the
multiplier as per the 2nd Schedule, in a claim under 166, in the
case of unmarried persons, the age of the claimants has to be
looked into. Even though it was argued that in 163A
application, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle
need not be proved but in a claim under 166, that has to be
proved. Therefore, compensation awarded should be higher
than what is mentioned in the 2nd Schedule. We are unable to
accept the contentions in view of the Apex Court decisions on
that point. It was noticed that mother was 45 years old and
father was 40 years. 13 was the apt multiplier taking guidelines
from the 2nd Schedule. Tribunal did not even calculate
compensation taking 13 as the multiplier and reduced
multiplicand was taken after seven years. That is not intended
and future cannot be predicted. However, as years go by,
income was also increasing and we cannot presume that he
will not support the appellants in their old age. Therefore, if the
monthly income of Rs.1,500/- was taken, after deducting /3 , 1 rd
Rs.1,000/- was correctly fixed by the tribunal as loss of family
MFA.143/03 3
contribution. 13 is the apt multiplier. If that be so,
compensation payable for loss of dependency and family
contribution is Rs.1,56,000/-. Tribunal has granted only
Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, claimants will be entitled to additional
amount of Rs.36,000/- and the above additional amount of
Rs.36,000/- should be deposited by the 2nd respondent Insurance
company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its
deposit over and above the decreed amount by the tribunal. On
deposit of the amount, appellants are allowed to withdraw the
same in equal proportion. This appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp
MFA.143/03 4
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
————————————–
M.F.A.No.143 OF 2003
————————————-
J U D G M E N T
11th June, 2008