LAWS(KER)-2012-9-168

M.K.PATHU Vs. MANAGING PARTNER, BOSCO TRAVELS

Decided On September 10, 2012
M.K.PATHU Appellant
V/S
MANAGING PARTNER, BOSCO TRAVELS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECEASED Pareed Kunju is the sole earning member of the family consisting of his mother and siblings who are appellants 1 to 4. He died in a motor accident, consequent to the injury sustained in the accident. A claim petition was filed by his mother and three siblings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the MV Act', for short) claiming a total amount of Rs.4,51,700/- from respondents 1 to 3 who are the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Fourth respondent is the father of the deceased, who is living separately.

(2.) THE claim petition was jointly tried with other petitions and both oral and documentary evidence was adduced. THE Tribunal on consideration of the contentions and evidence adduced in this case found that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.1,71,890/-. THE 1st appellant is entitled to get 50% and the 4th respondent is found to be entitled to get 20% of the compensation. Remaining 30% was ordered to be divided equally among claimants 2 and 3. THE 3rd respondent was directed to produce separate cheques towards compensation.

(3.) AFTER deducting one third towards personable expenses which is permissible under law, the multiplicand will be Rs.1,335/-. Learned counsel for the appellants argued in the light of the decision reported in Sumathikutty v. Manoj (2011 (4) KLT 304) of the Division Bench of this Court that the multiplier is to be fixed at 18, taking into account the age of the deceased. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent however submitted that such multiplier cannot be adopted in this case taking into account the age of the mother, in the light of the decision reported in Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu (2005 (8) SCC 473). It is held therein that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant which ever is higher, in ascertaining the loss of dependency. There is no reason why this method should be departed from.