Joy, S/o Kora; Aleyamma; Anju Joy v. Babu Jacob; Eldho T.V.; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/28TH ASWINA, 1939 MACA.No. 346 of 2010 ( ) ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1210/2006 of MACT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 15-12-2009 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. JOY, S/O.KORA RESIDING AT NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ (FATHER OF THE DECEASED). 2. ALEYAMMA, W/O.JOY, RESIDING AT NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED). 3. ANJU JOY, D/O.JOY, 13 YEARS, (DOB 21.4.1997) RESIDING AT NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN JOY, S/O.KORA, RESIDING AT NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ (SISTER OF THE DECEASED) BY ADVS.SRI.C.DILIP SRI.K.C.KIRAN ## RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. BABU JACOB , S/O.K.P.JACOB PULPARAYIL HOUSE (PULPARA GRANITES), MANNATHOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. ELDHO.T.V, S/O.VARGHESE, TAHCHETHU HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O.,, AIKARANAD NORTH. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ. ========================== M.A.C.A. No.346 OF 2010 ==========================** Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** _Sudheendra Kumar, J._ The appellants are the parents and the minor sister of deceased Ajo Joy who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 5.8.2006 at about 12.15 p.m. While the deceased Ajo Joy was pedaling a cycle along the public road, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-17/C-0825, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased and as a consequence, he sustained serious injuries and he was taken to the hospital immediately. However, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 2. In connection with the death of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,61,400/- as compensation. **M.A.C.A.No.346/2010** 2 3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by the second respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the third respondent, being the insurer, to deposit the amount of compensation before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. The deceased was a student aged 13 years at the time of accident. The parents of the deceased were aged 42 years and 37 years respectively. Even though the deceased was not an earning member, the multiplier specified in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act can form the basis for calculating the dependency compensation as held by the Apex Court in R.K.Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others [(2009) 14 SCC 1]. The Apex Court, in R.K.Malik (supra), referring to the decision in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218], observed in paragraph 29 thus:- “While doing so the Supreme Court held that contribution of each child towards the family should be taken as Rs.24,000 per annum instead **M.A.C.A.No.346/2010** 3 of Rs.12,000 per annum as recommended by Justice Y.V.Chandrachud Committee.” Thus, it is clear from the above observation of the Apex Court that an amount of Rs.24,000/- per annum has to be taken as the contribution of the child to the family. Since the said amount is the contribution to the family, there is no need to deduct any amount from the said sum towards personal expenses of the deceased. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala and Ors.(2013 ACJ 2594) wherein after fixing the notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum, the Apex Court did not deduct any amount from the said sum for the purpose of calculating dependency compensation. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], held that the multiplier is to be used on the basis of the age of deceased. The second schedule to the M.V.Act provides that '15' must be the multiplier so far as a child up to 15 years is concerned. Therefore, we are taking '15' as the multiplier. We also fix the contribution of the deceased to the family **M.A.C.A.No.346/2010** 4 as Rs.24,000/- per annum for the purpose of calculating dependency compensation. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (24000x15) as compensation towards loss of dependency. Subtracting the amount of Rs.1,34,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,25,600/- under the said head. The appellants are the parents and minor sister of the deceased. Therefore, we are granting an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants as compensation towards loss of love and affection as the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.10,000/under the said count. We are also granting an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.5,000/- under the said count. Thus, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,80,600/- as additional compensation. The above amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The third respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, is directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal with interest within a period of two months from the date of **M.A.C.A.No.346/2010** 5 receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount shall be released to the appellants only after deducting the balance court fee. The appeal stands disposed of as above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.No.346/2010** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** 7 ## **M.A.C.A.No.346/2010** **JUDGMENT September, 2010**