## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT :**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933**
**MACA.No. 2225 of 2010()**
**---------------------OP(MV).564/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA ..................**
**APPELLANT / 3RD RESPONDENT :**
**-------------------------------------------------**
**UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW**
**RESPONDENT / PETITIONER :**
**-------------------------------------------**
**SAJINI, W/O.PAVITHRAN, `SAIVAM', PATTANTE THAZHA KUNI PARAMB, ORAKKATTERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK-673 501.**
**(NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL).**
**BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Mn**
## **R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010. ---------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th ] day of July, 2011**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **BASANT,J.**
Insurance company is the appellant. The sole claimant aged 43 years is the mother of the deceased. Her son aged 20 years, the deceased was well qualified. He was an Engineer. He had passed out from NTTF, Tellichery. Immediately after passing out of the institution he had secured an employment and his monthly salary was Rs.4,750/-. He suffered injuries on 13.8.2007 and succumbed to such injuries. The accident occurred at Thambaram, in Tamilnadu. Against the total claim of Rs.10 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.8,97,800/- as compensation as per the details shown below:
1.Loss of dependency : Rs.8,20,800/-(7600x50/100x12x18) 2.Transport : Rs. 2,000/3.Funeral : Rs. 10,000/-
4.Loss of estate Loss of love and affection and loss of expectancy : Rs.60,000/5.Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/--------------Total Rs.8,97,800/-
2
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
2. The Insurance Company claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The challenge is raised on the plank of excessiveness of the quantum of compensation awarded. Specific challenge is raised against the amounts awarded under two heads shown above namely loss of dependency and the global amount awarded under the head of loss of estate etc.
3. We shall now proceed to consider the specific grounds. Deceased was earning an income of Rs.4,750/- only. But the Tribunal reckoned the multiplicand at Rs.7,600/-. It is first of all contended that the process adopted by the Tribunal is totally unjustifiable. Going by **Sarala Verma(Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121],** the maximum addition that should be given was 50% and so reckoned the monthly income for the purpose of computation of
loss of dependency could not have exceeded Rs.7,125/(4750x150/100). The Tribunal erred taking Rs.7,600/- as the monthly income for the purpose of ascertaining loss of dependency, contends the counsel first of all.
4. Only 50% has been reckoned as the possible contribution to the mother and there can virtually be no dispute about that approach made by the Tribunal.
3
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company trains all guns at the adoption of the multiplier at 18. The Tribunal has ignored accepted principles which are trite and well settled in assuming that 18 can be reckoned as the multiplier. If the age of
the deceased is taken, certainly 18 can be accepted as the multiplier but the claimant in this case, the mother of the deceased is shown to be a woman in the age group 40 to 45 years. For such a person going by **Sarala Verma** the permissible multiplier is only 14. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company hence argues that at any rate 18 should not have been adopted as multiplier. Nothing more than 15 can be adopted as the multiplier, contends counsel.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand contends that it would be myopic to reckon the figures and details given in **Sarala Verma** as immutable or rigid. Learned counsel in this context places reliance on the decision in **K.R Madhusoodhanan and other v. Administrative Officer(2011**
**(4) SCC 689)** to contend that deviations from the principles enumerated in **Sarala Verma** is perfectly justifiable. **Sarala Verma** also says so. **Madhusoodhanan** follows the same. In these circumstance the Tribunal, the primary mandate to which is
4
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
to ensure that just compensation is paid, should not find it difficult in an appropriate case in the interest of justice to deviate from the dictum in **Sarala Verma** contends the counsel.
7. We have no hesitation to accept that **Sarala Verma** cannot obliviously be read and understood as a rigid inflexible statutory stipulation. Even **Sarala Verma** makes the position very clear. Deviation in exceptional cases is perfectly authorised by the dictum in **Sarala Verma** . **Madhusoodhanan** removes the last trace of doubt if any on that aspect.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that at any rate the total amount of Rs.8,97,800/- is absolutely justified and same does not warrant appellate interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel points out that the amount granted under the head of Transport is too meagre and does not realistically taken into account the fact that the death had taken place at Thambaram in Tamilnadu. It is further submitted that there is indisputable evidence to show that the deceased did not die at the spot of the accident. He had to be taken to one hospital and later he was removed to another hospital for expert management. The amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering also is inadequate, points out the
5
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
counsel. The counsel further submits that expenses of medical treatment for which no documents have been produced also ought to have been granted not withstanding the inability of the mother at the native place to produce documents to prove such medical expenses incurred. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant further contends that taking into account the totality of circumstances the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded under the composite head of loss of estate, loss of love and affection etc. is also justified.
9. We have rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant contentions. There cannot possibly be a dispute that dependent/claimant cannot be granted any additional advantage or benefit because of the unfortunate death of the deceased person. To us it appears to be fundamental that when the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased and the claimants are different, the lower multiplier is to be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the multiplier applicable to the facts of that case. So reckoned, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier could not have exceeded 14 in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find no exceptional reasons justifying a deviation from **Sarala Verma** on the
6
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
question of the multiplier.
10. We now come to the amount of monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal. Strictly following **Sarala Verma** the amount could not have exceeded Rs.7,125/-(i.e. Rs.4750x130/100) but the Tribunal had reckoned Rs.7,600/- as the multiplicand. In this case we must note that the young deceased, a fresher out of college, had of course secured an employment and had started earning an income of Rs.4,750/-. It
would be idle to assume that, that must be reckoned as sacrosanct while ascertaining the monthly income. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the discretion exercised as the Tribunal in accepting Rs.7,600/- in preference to Rs.7,125/- which should have been the maximum admissible by a rigid application of the dictum in **Sarala Verma** does not warrant appellate interference.
11. For transportation expenses only Rs.2,000/- has been awarded and in the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that considering the fact that the death had taken place at Thamparam in Tamilnadu, the expenses of transportation can be reasonably enhanced. For medical expenses, even in the absence of any better evidence we are of the opinion that an amount of
7
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
Rs.7,500/- can be awarded considering the indisputable facts available in this case. For pain and suffering only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded and we deem it appropriate to raise the amount to Rs.10,000/-.
12. For loss of love and affection suffered by the claimant no separate amount has been awarded. A global amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded. We deem it necessary to award the admissible amounts under specific heads. We are satisfied that for the loss of estate a notional amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Claimant a young mother has lost her son who was only 20 years of age. For loss of love and affection, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded.
13. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 7,15,900/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs fifteen thousand and nine hundred only) as compensation as per the details given below:
Loss of dependency : Rs. 6,38,400/- (7600x12x1/2x14) Transportation expenses : Rs. 15,000/Funeral expenses : Rs. 10,000/Medical expenses : Rs.7,500/-
8
**M.A.C.A No.2225 OF 2010**
Loss of estate : Rs.15,000/Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection: Rs. 20,000/-
--------------Rs.7,15,900 =========
14. The claimant shall be entitled only for the said amount of Rs.7,15,900/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifteen thousand and nine hundred only)
In the result;
- (a) This appeal is allowed in part.
- (b)In supersession of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the claimant/respondent is found entitled to an amount of Rs.7,15,900/- (Rupees seven lakh fifteen thousand and nine hundred only) as shown above.
- (c) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
## **R.BASANT, JUDGE**
## **N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE**
mns
