JOSEPH VARGHESE Vs. PRINCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal heirs of a 12 year old boy who died in a road traffic accident complains that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation. It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is inadequate. We have heard the submissions of Mr. Philip T. Varghese, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt. P.K. Santhamma, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award.

(2.) We find that the original petition filed by the appellants was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal adopted the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 1000/-. The learned Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 only as per the structured formula of the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The argument which was addressed before us by Mr. Philip T. Varghese was that the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal is too low. He referred to Ext.A6 certificate issued by the authorities of the school where the deceased was studying and submitted that the deceased was a very bright student. The learned counsel submitted that the deceased boy was among the top of 5 in the school in the general proficiency. Relying on the decision in Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh, 2008 1 KerLT 614, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the deceased was a very young man, what the Tribunal is expected to do is to offset the high multiplier provided by the IInd Schedule by matching the same with the multiplier which is applicable to the parents who are surviving. We find merit in both the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. We adopt the monthly income of the deceased notionally as Rs. 2000/- and we find that the father of the deceased was 35 years and mother was 30 years. We adopt the multiplier of 16 which is applicable to the age group of the mother who is the younger of the parents. When dependency of compensation is recalculated adopting the multiplicand and the multiplier as stated above, the appellants will become eligible for a further sum of Rs. 12,000/-- towards dependency compensation and we award the above amount to the appellants. We notice that the original petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the original petition was under Section 163A, the appellants cannot legitimately aspire for only what is payable in terms of structured formula towards the other heads. We find that towards the head of medical expenses, nothing has been awarded. The Tribunal should have awarded compensation as per the IInd Schedule towards medical expenses. We award Rs. 8,000/- more to the appellants towards that head. Thus in all the appellants will be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 20,000/- more over and above what was awarded by the Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the same rate awarded by the Tribunal.