IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 570 of 2003()
1. THANKAMONY, W/O. PEETHAMBARAN,
... Petitioner
2. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O. MADHAVA PANICKER,
3. SANDYARANI, D/O. PEETHAMBARAN,
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. C.WILFRED, S/O. CHELLAYAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :25/05/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.570 OF 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the
claimants in O.P.(MV)No.773/2001 of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Neyyattinkara challenge the judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated March 5, 2003 awarding a compensation of
Rs. 2,30,948/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of
deceased Ajayakumar in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :
Deceased Ajayakumar was aged 22 at the time of the accident
and used to earn Rs. 3,600/- per month as a Workshop Mechanic,
according to the claimants. On June 14, 2001, the deceased was riding
his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KRT-7745 from his workshop to
Palottuvila junction. When he reached near Malayinkil junction, a
KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-1300 driven by the second
respondent came at a high speed from the opposite side and dashed
against the motor cycle of the deceased. Deceased sustained very
MACA.No.570/2003 2
serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while
undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram on the next day. Claimants are the parents and
sister of the deceased. They are the legal heirs and dependents of the
deceased. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by second respondent.
First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver of the
offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the claimants. Claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs.
3. First respondent, the Managing Director of KSRTC filed a
written statement before the Tribunal admitting the accident, but
contending that there was no negligence on the part of the second
respondent. Second respondent did not file any separate written
statement.
4. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants
before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation
of Rs. 2,30,948/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The claimants have
MACA.No.570/2003 3
now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the
standing counsel for the KSRTC.
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, the driver of the offending bus is not challenged in
this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration
is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation.
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,30,948/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under :
Loss of dependency - Rs. 1,88,448/-
Loss of love and affection - Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
Pain and suffering - Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation - Rs. 2,000/-
Damage to clothing - Rs. 500/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/-
----------------
Total - Rs. 2,30,948/-
==========
8. Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the
compensation for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal took the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- and after deducting 1/3
MACA.No.570/2003 4
for his personal expenses, took Rs.1334/- as his monthly contribution
to his family which comes to Rs. 16,008/- annually. The Tribunal
adopted a multiplier of 17. For the first 6 years, the above amount was
taken as his yearly contribution to his family. But for the remaining 11
years, the contribution to his family was taken as Rs. 700/- per month
on the ground that he would have married and his contribution to his
family would have been reduced.
9. Ext.A6 is the certificate issued from one N.M.Two Wheeler
Works, Pappanamcode stating that the deceased was working there as a
Mechanic and used to earn Rs. 3,600/- per month. Though the person
who issued Ext.A6 was not examined to prove the same, we feel that
the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably estimated at
Rs. 2,500/- per month which comes to Rs. 30,000/- annually. After
deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, balance amount of
Rs. 20,000/- can be taken as his yearly contribution to his family. The
Tribunal took the multiplier of 17. Taking into consideration the fact
that the deceased was aged 22 at the time of the accident and the
mother, father and sister were aged 44, 48 and 20 respectively at the
time of the accident, we are of the view that the multiplier adopted by
MACA.No.570/2003 5
the Tribunal is reasonable. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency,
claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/-
( Rs. 20,000/- x 17). Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs. 1,51,552/- for the loss of dependency. As regards
the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be
reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.
10. In the result, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs. 1,51,552/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost.
The first respondent being the owner 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
sv.
MACA.No.570/2003 6
MACA.No.570/2003 7