MACA Nos. 150/2007, 170/2007, 212/2007 and 216/2007 (Motor Accident Claims Appeals) v. Asharaf and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.150 OF 2007** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 360/2003 DATED 30-06-2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 SAJITHA, W/O.LATE GANGADHARAN.** - **2 SANGEETH (MINOR) S/O.LATE GANGADHARAN** - **3 SYAMILY (MINOR) D/O.LATE GANGADHARAN (MINOR APPELLANTS REPRESENTED BY THEIR, GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN).** - **4 KUMARAN, F/O.LATE GANGADHARAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHERAKKARAVALAPPIL HOUSE,, P.O.THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ASHARAFF, S/O.ABDULLA,RESIDING AT KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PONNANI TOWN SOUTH P.O.,, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **2 DEVASSIA.T. S/O.JOSEPH RESIDING AT PERUMANKOVIL STREET, PONDICHERRY.(DELETED) [R2 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2018 IN IA NO.2/18 IN MACA 150/07].** - **3 NAZEER.V.K. S/O.MOIDHUKUTTY RESIDING AT VARIYAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,, THAVANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **2** |**4**|**THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY**| |---|---| ||**LTD, K.H.BUILDING, THAZHAPALAM, TIRUR BEACH.**| |**5**|**P.R.NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER**| ||**KALLYAN PRODUCTS, KUTTANELLOOR,, THRISSUR.**| |**6**|**FRANCHIS.E.T.**| ||**S/O.THIMOTHY**| ||**RESIDING AT ELAVANTHINGAL HOUSE,, ANCHERY,**| ||**THRISSUR.**| |**7**|**THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY**| ||**LTD, THRISSUR BRANCH.**| ||**R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE**| ||**R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.170/2007, MACA.212/2007, MACA.216/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.170 OF 2007** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 356/2003 DATED 30-06-2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR** ## **APPELLANTS:** |**1**|**REMA,**| |---|---| ||**WIDOW OF SHAJI**| |**2**|**RANJITH (MINOR)**| ||**SO.LATE SHAJI.**| |**3**|**ROHITH (MINOR)**| ||**S/O. LATE SHAJI.**| |**4**|**KARAPPAN,**| ||**F/O. LATE SHAJI.**| |**5**|**CHEMBI M/O. LATE SHAJI.**| ||**(MINOR APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY, THEIR**| ||**GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN)., ALL ARE**| ||**RESIDING AT MURADAVIL THARAYIL HOUSE,,**| ||**P.O.THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON**| ||**SRI.JIBU P THOMAS**| ||**SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**ASHARAF**| |---|---| ||**S/O.ABDULLA**| ||**RESIDING AT KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE,, PONNANI TOWN**| ||**SOUTH P.O., PONNANI P.O.,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **4** - **2 DEVASSIA T. S/O.JOSEPH RESIDING AT PERUMANKOVIL STREET,, PONDICHERRY.** - **3 NAZEER V.K. S/O.MOIDHUKUTTY RESIDING AT VARIYAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,, THAVANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **4 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, K.H.BUILDING,, THAZHAPALAM, TIRUR BRANCH.** - **5 P.R.NAIR MANAGING PARTNER KALLYAN PRODUCTS, KUTTANELLOOR,, THRISSUR.** - **6 FRANCHIS E.T. S/O.THIMOTHY RESIDING AT ELAVATHINGAL HOUSE,, ANCHERY, THRISSUR.** - **7 THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR BRANCH.** **R1, R7 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH R3 BY ADV. SMT.PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.150/2007, MACA.212/2007, MACA.216/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.212 OF 2007** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 357/2003 DATED 30-06-2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR** ## **APPELLANTS:** |**1**|**RADHAMANI,**| |---|---| ||**WIDOW OF BALAKRISHNAN**| |**2**|**ATHULYA (MINOR) D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN**| ||**(MINOR THE 2ND APPELLANT REPRESENTED BY HER,**| ||**GUARDIAN MOTHER THE IST APPELLANT HEREIN)**| |**3**|**JANAKI, WIDOW OF BHASKARAN,**| ||**ALL ARE RESIDING AT KONGASSERY VALAPPIL HOUSE,, P.O**| ||**THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.JIBU P THOMAS**| ||**SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON**| ||**SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**ASHARAFF**| |---|---| ||**S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT**| ||**KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE,PONNANI TOWN SOUTH P.O.,,**| ||**PONNANI P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**DEVASSIA T. S/O.JOSEPH RESIDING AT**| ||**PERUMANKOVIL STREET,PONDICHERRY(DELETED)**| ||**(R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF**| ||**THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 15/11/2018 IN IA**| ||**NO.1/2018).**| **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **6** - **3 NAZEER V.K S/O.MOIDHUKUTTY RESIDING AT VARIYAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THAVANOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT.** - **4 THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, K.H BUILDING,THAZHAPALAM,, TIRUR BRANCH.** - **5 P.R.NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, KALLYAN PRODUCTS,KUTTANELLOOR,THRISSUR.** - **6 FRANCIS E.T, S/O.TIMOTHY, RESIDING AT ELAVATHINGAL HOUSE,ANCHERY,THRISSUR.** - **7 THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,THRISSUR BRANCH.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA R1 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.150/2007, MACA.170/2007, MACA.216/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **7** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.216 OF 2007** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 433/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR** ## **APPELLANT:** |**ANT**<br>**:**|| |---|---| |**1**|**CHEMBI,**| ||**W/O.LATE KUNJATHA,**| |**2**|**KUTTAN,**| ||**S/O. CHEMBI.**| |**3**|**HARIDASAN,**| ||**S/O. CHEMBI.**| |**4**|**SASI,**| ||**S/O. CHEMBI.**| |**5**|**NEELI,**| ||**D/O. CHEMBI**| |**6**|**LEELA,**| ||**D/O. CHEMBI.**| |**7**|**NALINI, D/O. CHEMBI.**| ||**(ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHAMAPARAMBIL HOUSE,,**| ||**P.O.THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.)**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON**| ||**SRI.JIBU P THOMAS**| ||**SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL**| **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **8** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**ASHARAFF**| |---|---| ||**S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT**| ||**KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE,PONNANI TOWN SOUTH P.O.,,**| ||**PONNANI P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**DEVASSIA T. S/O. JOSEPH**| ||**RESIDING AT PERUMANKOVIL STREET,,**| ||**PONDICHERRY(DELETED)(R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY**| ||**ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER**| ||**DATED 3/1/2019 IN IA NO.1/2018)**| |**3**|**NAZEER V.K. S/O. MOIDHUKUTTY**| ||**RESIDING AT VARIYAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,, THAVANOOR P.O.,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE**| ||**COMPANY LIMITED, K.H.BUILDING,, THAZHAPALAM, TIRUR**| ||**BRANCH.**| |**5**|**P.R.NAIR MANAGING PARTNER**| ||**KALLYAN PRODUCTS, KUTTANELLOOR,, THRISSUR.**| |**6**|**FRANCIS E.T. SO. THIMOTHY**| ||**RESIDING AT ELAVATHINGAL HOUSE,, ANCHERY, THRISSUR.**| |**7**|**THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY**| ||**LIMITED, THRISSUR BRANCH.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.150/2007, MACA.170/2007, MACA.212/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **9** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- MACA.150/2007, MACA.170/2007, MACA.212/2007 & MACA.216/2007 ------------------------------- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 12th day of March 2021 These four appeals are connected and therefore, I am disposing these four appeals by a common judgment. 2. MACA No.170/2007 was filed against the order dated 30.06.2006 in O.P.(MV)No.356/2003 on the file Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. MACA No.212/2007, MACA No.150/2007 and MACA No. 216/2007 are filed against the award in O.P. (MV)Nos.357/2003, 360/2003 and 433/2003. All the above claim petitions were disposed by the tribunal by a common award dated 30.06.2006. 3. The short facts are like this:- On 03.04.2003, one Shaji, Balakrishnan, **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **10** Gangadharan, Sundaran and Babu were travelling in a car bearing Reg.No. PY – 01N – 6318 through Palakkad – Thrissur public road. At about 3.40 p.m., when the car reached the place Erattakulam, it hit against a van bearing Reg. No. KL – 8S – 9933 which came from the opposite direction. The passengers of the car sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Shaji, Balakrishnan, Gangadhran and Sundaran succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. It is the case of the claimants that, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the car. 4. The O.P.(MV)No.356/2003 is filed by the wife, children and parents of Shaji. The claim petition O.P.(MV)No.357/2003 is filed by the wife, daughter and parents of Balakrishnan. The O.P.(MV)No.360/03 is filed by the wife, children and father of Gangadharan. The O.P.(MV) No.433/03 is filed by the mother, brothers and sisters of Sundaran. The O.P. (MV) No.434/2003 is filed by Babu, claiming **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **11** compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 5. The driver, owner and insurer of both vehicles were arrayed as party in all the claim petitions. 6. As per order in I.A No.2283/06 in O.P.(MV) No.360/03 joint trial of these claim petitions were allowed. Evidence was recorded in O.P(MV) No.360/03. PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A34 series were marked on the side of the petitioners/claimants. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the 4[th] respondent. No evidence was adduced by other respondents. The Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car or the van? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 3. Reliefs and costs? Additional issue: **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **12** ## Whether the fourth respondent is liable to pay compensation?” 7. As far as the issue no.1 is concerned, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 3[rd] respondent who was the driver of the car. 8. As far as the additional issue framed by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal found that the 4[th] respondent Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation to the claimants on the basis of Ext.B1 insurance policy because the company had not collected any premium for the gratuitous passengers of the private car. 9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal passed separate compensation in all the cases which are impugned in this appeal. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and exoneration of the Insurance Company, these four appeals are filed by the **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **13** claimants. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from payment of compensation. The learned counsel relied the judgment of the Apex court in **Manuara Khatun and others v Rajesh Kr.Singh and others [2017** **(4) SCC 796],** in which the Apex court directed to pay the compensation by the Insurance Company and thereafter, they were allowed to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The counsel submitted that in this case, the Insurance Company is completely exonerated and the same is not correct. The counsel also submitted that in all these cases while fixing the compensation, the multiplier used is not correct. The counsel submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma &** **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **14** ## **Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another** **[2010 (2) KLT802],** the correct multiplier is 17. The counsel also submitted that the amount awarded by the tribunal towards funeral expense is also too low and only Rs.2,500/- is granted. The counsel argued that the compensation awarded in the other heads are also at the lower side. 12. The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that, after considering the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in **Manuara Khatun's** case (supra), this court in judgment dated 8/3/2021 in MACA No.863/2019 held that, the Insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation in the cases in which there is no premium paid to gratuitous passengers. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the 7[th] respondent also. 14. The first point to be decided is whether the exoneration of the Insurance company is justified. **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **15** The Tribunal considered this point in detail, and after referring the decision of the Apex Court, exonerated the Insurance company. It will be beneficial to extract the finding of the Tribunal:- “54. Additional issue in all the petitions:- the fourth respondent has admitted that the car involved in the accident was insured with it. However, the fourth respondent has filed additional written statement denying liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The plea of the fourth respondent is that the deceased persons and the petitioner in OP (MV) No. 434/2003 were travelling in a private car at the time of the accident and that the policy of insurance issued by the company in respect of the vehicle does not cover the risk of gratuitous passengers of a private vehicle. 55. Ext. B1 is the copy of the policy of insurance. It shows that it is an Act only policy. It is seen from Ext. B1 that premium was collected by the insurance company for third party risk and to cover the risk of owner cum driver and one employee. No premium is collected by the insurance company to cover the risk of a passenger of the car except the owner and the driver. 56. It is mentioned in the claim petitions that the car involved in the accident was a santro car (see the entry against the third respondent in the cause titles of the claim petitions) PW2 to PW4 have stated on cross **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **16** examination that the deceased persons were travelling in a private car. There is no averment in the claim petitions that the deceased persons and the petitioner in OP(MV) 434/2003 were travelling in a car plying as a taxi or a public passenger carrying vehicle. In these circumstances, it is found that the deceased persons and the petitioner in OP (MV) No.434/2003 were travelling in the private car PY-01N-6318 at the time of the accident. 57. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent insurance company has cited the decision in United India Insurance Company Vs.Tilak Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1576) in support of his contention that the insurance company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the basis of Ext.B1 policy. It was a case in which the question arose whether the statutory insurance policy would cover the risk of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle. It was a case in which compensation was claimed for the death of a pillion rider of a scooter. The policy of insurance issued by the insurance company in respect of the scooter revealed that no premium was collected to cover the risk of a pillion rider. After referring to the decision in New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani (AIR 2003 SC 607) which overruled the decision in New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpai Singh (AIR 2000 SC 235), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows; **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **17** “In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case (Supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contentions of the appellant insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger” 58. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it has to be found that the fourth respondent insurance company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the basis of Ext.B1 policy. The insurance company had not collected any premium to cover the risk of gratuitous passengers of the private car. The policy of insurance did not cover the risk of the passengers of the car except the owner and the driver. In these circumstances, I find that the fourth respondent insurance company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The issue is answered accordingly.” 15. I see no reason to interfere with the above **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **18** ## finding of the tribunal. 16. The argument of the appellants based on the decision of the Apex Court in **Manuara Khatun's** case (supra) is already rejected by another Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 8/3/2021 in MACA No.863/2019. Therefore, according to me, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned award as far as the exoneration of the insurance company is concerned. 17. Then, the question is whether the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation and whether enhancement is necessary. I will take all these four cases separately. ## MACA No.216/2007 18. In this case, the deceased was aged 28 years. He was a construction worker. He claimed that his monthly income is Rs.4,000/-. But, the Tribunal fixed it as Rs.3,000/-. The counsel submitted that the multiplier used by the Tribunal is wrong. The tribunal **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **19** used the multiplier based on the age of the parents. There is some force in the above argument. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT802],** the correct multiplier is 17. The Tribunal after deducting Rs.1,500/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, an amount of Rs.1,500/- is taken for assessing the dependency compensation. If that is the case, the dependency compensation is to reassessed in the following manner:- Rs.1,500x12x17= Rs.3,06,000/-. After deducting the amount already granted the balance amount will be Rs.1,62,000/-. 19. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expense is only Rs.2,500/-. In the light of the judgment of the Apex court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4) KLT 662],** the claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/- towards **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **20** compensation for funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellant is entitled an additional amount of Rs,12,500/-. Even though, the counsel for the appellant argued that, the appellant is entitled additional compensation after adding future prospects to the income, according to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, a just compensation is already awarded. Therefore, no enhancement is necessary in other heads. Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled to the appellants in MACA No.216/07 can be summarized like this: |Head|Amount| |---|---| |Enhanced compensation for<br>dependency|Rs.1,62,000/-| |Enhanced compensation for<br>funeral expenses|Rs. 12,500/-| |Total|Rs. 1,74,500/-| ## MACA No.212/2007 20. In this case, the deceased was aged 30 and he was a painter by profession. He claimed that he **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **21** was getting an amount of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income and the Tribunal accepted the same. After deducting the amount towards personal expense Rs.2,000/- can be taken as monthly income of the deceased. Here also the multiplier used is not correct. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT802]** the correct multiplier is 17. Therefore, the compensation entitled to the appellant towards dependency can be summarised like this:- Rs.2,000x12x17=4,08,000/-. 21. The amount already granted by the Tribunal is Rs.3,64,000/- which is to be deducted from the above amount. Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellants towards dependency compensation is Rs.54,000/-. The appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.12,500/- towards funeral expense in the light of **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **22** the judgment of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4) KLT 662].** Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellants in this case can be summarized like this:- |s:-|| |---|---| |Head|Amount| |Enhanced compensation for<br>dependency|Rs.54,000/-| |Enhanced compensation for<br>funeral expenses|Rs. 12,500/-| |Total|Rs. 66,500/-| ## MACA No.150/2007 22. In this case deceased was aged 30 and he was a plumber by profession. According to the claimants, he was working in Saudi Arabia. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income as Rs.15,000/-. After deducting the personal expense, the monthly income can be decided as Rs.5,000/-. Such an amount is taken because he was working in gulf. Here also the multiplier is not correct. In the light of the **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **23** judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another** **[2010 (2) KLT802],** the correct multiplier is 17. If that is the case, the dependency compensation is to be reassessed in the following manner:- Rs.5,000x12x17=Rs.10,20,000/-. 23. The amount already granted is Rs.9,12,000/- which is to be deducted from this head. Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellants towards dependency compensation is Rs.1,08,000/-. In this case also the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.12,500/towards funeral expense in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4) KLT 662].** Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant in this case can be summarized like this:- **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **24** |Head|Amount| |---|---| |Enhanced compensation for<br>dependency|Rs.1,08,000/-| |Enhanced compensation for<br>funeral expenses|Rs. 12,500/-| |Total|Rs. 1,20,500/-| ## MACA No.170/2007 24. In this case, the deceased was aged 20 years and he was a loading and unloading worker. The Tribunal accepted the monthly income claimed by him and it was fixed as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting the amount from his personal expenses, the amount taken was Rs.2,000/-. Here also the multiplier used is not correct. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT802],** the correct multiplier is 17. If that is the case, the dependency compensation is to be reassessed in the following manner:- Rs.2,000x12x17=Rs.4,08,000/-. **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **25** 25. The Tribunal already granted Rs.3,78,000/which is to be deducted from the above amount. Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellants towards dependency compensation is Rs.30,000/-. In this case also the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.12,500/towards funeral expense in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4) KLT 662].** Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant in this case can be summarized like this:- |Head|Amount| |---|---| |Enhanced compensation for<br>dependency|Rs.30,000/-| |Enhanced compensation for<br>funeral expenses|Rs. 12,500/-| |Total|Rs. 42,500/-| 26. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the monthly income has to be assessed considering the future prospects also. I think, since a just compensation is **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **26** awarded, no change is necessary in that respect. Similarly, the contention based on the consortium is also to be rejected. It is a case where the Insurance company is exonerated and the direction is issued to the 1[st] and 3[rd] respondents to pay the compensation. Therefore, according to me, the amount awarded will be a just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, these appeals are disposed in the following manner:- i. MACA No.216/2007 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified. The appellants are entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,74,500/-. The appellants are entitled interest for the above amount at the rate of 6% p.a. ii. MACA No.212/07 appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified. The appellants are entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.66,500/-. The appellants are also entitled interest for the above amount at the rate of 6% p.a. iii. MACA No.150/2007 is allowed in part. The **MACA.No.150 OF 2007 & Con.cases** **27** impugned award is modified. The appellants are entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,20,500/-. The appellants are entitled interest for the above amount at the rate of 6% p.a. iv. MACA No.170/2007 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified. The appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.42,500/-. The appellant is entitled interest for the above amount at the rate of 6% p.a. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ska