IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 MACA NO. 1385 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 243/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:

1 VARGHESE S/O.PATHROSE, MAZHUVANCHERIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2 KUNJAMMA VARGHESE W/O.VARGHESE, MAZHUVANCHERIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

3 MANJU D/O.VARGHESE, MAZHUVANCHERIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)

SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686575.

2 JOSE S/O.KUNJAVARA, PANGOTTIL HOUSE, PALACHUVADU P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686664.

3 BETTY W/O.JOSE, PANGOTTIL HOUSE, PALACHUVADU P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686664.

BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.243 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala.

2. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) seeking compensation for the death of one Valson due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 06.01.2010. The accident occurred when the motorcycle on which the deceased was pillion riding, driven by the 1^st respondent, dashed against a compound wall and plunged into the irrigation canal. Consequent to the injuries sustained, he died. The deceased was the son of appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of 3^rd appellant. He was 23 years at the time of the accident and he claimed to be earning an amount Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. The 2^nd respondent, the insurer of the said motor cycle, contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the motor cycle driven by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon; they also disputed the quantum of compensation as well.

4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A7 from the side of the appellants. From the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an award against the respondents by permitting the appellants to recover an amount of Rs.2,38,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Being the insurer of the vehicle, the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 2^nd respondent. This appeal is the appellants in such circumstances, seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable or not. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that, while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took the multiplier applicable to the age of the parents and made a deduction of 50% towards future prospects as well. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, such a method of computation was not permissible as the application was submitted under Section 163A of the M.V Act. The said contention has to be accepted as it is in tune with the statutory stipulations contained in Section 163A of the M.V Act. The said provision deals with a separate procedure for assessing the compensation strictly in tune with the structured formula contemplated under the second schedule of the M.V. Act as it stood prior to the amendment of the Act in the year 2018. As per the same, a separate method of computation has been contemplated, and no deviation from the same is permitte