LAWS(KER)-2011-7-156

BHAHULEYAN Vs. JAMAL A

Decided On July 20, 2011
BHAHULEYAN Appellant
V/S
JAMAL.A,PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are the appellants.THEy are the father, mother and elder brother of a deceased person who suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 5/9/2006 and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. THE claimants staked their claim for compensation under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to them, the deceased was employed as a hotel worker and was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem.

(2.) THE Tribunal considered the claim under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act. THE Tribunal found that the appellants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,88,200/- as compensation as per the details given below: 1. Loss of dependency (fatal accident)- Rs.1,76,000/- (2000 x 2/3 x 12 x 11) 2. Funeral expenses - Rs.2,000/- 3.Loss of estate - Rs.2,500/- 4. Medical bills - Rs.7,700/- --------------- Toal - Rs.1,88,200/- =======

(3.) WE have heard both counsel. WE find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. WE have adverted to this aspect already in some decisions. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Muneer (2003 (1) KLT 137) is already there on the question.In a claim for compensation in case of death, the Tribunal has to follow the 2nd Schedule strictly. When the 2nd Schedule is followed, Clause 1 relates to compensation payable for fatal accidents. Clause 1 gives a chart/table. The horizontal entries in the said chart/table relate to different age groups of the victim. The precise age need not be ascertained. Only the range of age need be ascertained. The 12 horizontal entries against column No.1 give the age of the victim in different age groups i.e., upto 15 years, above 15 years but not exceeding 20 years, above 20 years but not exceeding 25 years and so on. The last horizontal entry relates to persons aged above 65 years. For all persons belonging to the same age group the same amount of compensation is awarded depending upon their annual income. In the vertical columns the annual incomes are specified. WE have taken the view that the first column relating to Rs.3,000/- must be reckoned as that relating to persons of income group upto Rs.3,000/-. The second vertical column relates to the victims whose annual income is above Rs.3,000/- upto Rs.4,200/-. Similarly, the last vertical column relates to persons whose annual income is above Rs.36,000/- upto Rs.40,000/-. To compute the compensation payable in case of death, the Tribunal has only got to identify the correct and appropriate horizontal entry and the correct and appropriate vertical entry. With reference to the horizontal and vertical entries, the compensation amount payable has to be ascertained. The relevant entry gives the compensationamount "in thousands". From such amount, 1/3rd has to be deducted as indicated in the note under the table/chart. This is all what the Tribunals are expected to do. In this case the Tribunal erroneously proceeded to ascertain the multiplier by making use of the second vertical column and then proceeded to resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method. This is impermissible. In the 2nd Schedule though multiplier is given, the same is irrelevant while attempting to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death. If there be any doubt on this aspect, the last trace of such doubt is laid to rest by the Supreme Court in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gurumallamma and another (2009 ACJ 2660), paragraph-8 of which we extract below: