Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 19TH POUSHA 193 MACA.No. 2227 of 2006 (B) ------------------------- O.P.(MV) NO.492/1999 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN OP(MV):: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ROSY MATHEW, W/O. LATE MATHEW, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE EROOR NORTH P.O. TRIPUNITHURA.
2. WILSY MATHEW, D/O. LATE MATHEW, -DO-DO-. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):: ------------------------------------- 1. M. MURUGESAN, MARIAMMAN KOIL STREET KONDALAMPATTY SALEM-10.
2. C. DEVAN, H.NO.34/29-A NEAR SRDS PETROL BUNJ THIRUVANNAMALAI TAMIL NADU.
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., COCHIN-16. R.3 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan & K. Harilal, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.A.C.A. No. 2227 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of January, 2013. JUDGMENT
Siri Jagan, J.
The claimants in O.P(MV) No. 492/1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam are the appellants herein. They are the mother and sister of deceased Vincent Mathew, who died in a motor accident involving a vehicle of which the respondents were the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded the following compensation to the appellants for the death of Vincent Mathew:
1. Transportation, carriage of dead body and funeral expenses. Rs. 10,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- 3. Treatment expenses Rs. 85,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 5. Loss of dependency Rs.1,32,000 Total Rs.2,52,000 The appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.
2. According to the counsel for the appellants, the compensation assessed on all heads is inadequate. It is submitted that the deceased Vincent was aged 28 years and was running a business in sale of broiler chicken. According to the appellants, the deceased was earning a monthly income of M.A.C.A. No. 2227 of 2006 -:
2. :- Rs.5,000/-. But the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed Rs. 1000/- as the loss of dependency for the first four years and on the ground that he would have married after 4 years the rate of dependency was fixed as Rs. 500/- for the balance years of dependency. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal should have accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5000/-. It is submitted that the amount awarded for transportation is too low. Compensation amounts for pain and suffering and loss of love and affection are also low, is the contention.
3. We have considered the contentions in detail.
4. At the outset, we note that the Tribunal has taken the multiplier based on the age of the deceased rather than the age of the mother. The other claimant is the sister who is normally expected to get married to and set up a separate family. As such, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was very lenient in the matter of calculating the loss of dependency.
5. As regards the income, no evidence was adduced to prove the claim of Rs. 5000/-. The Tribunal therefore fixed a notional income of Rs. 1500/- p.m. which cannot be faulted at all. Deducting 1/3rd, the loss of dependency was fixed as Rs. 1,000/- for 4 years. On the ground that after three or four years, he would have married and set up his own family, loss of dependency was reduced to Rs. 500/- for the period after 4 years. We do not find any fault in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. As such, we are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that the assessment of compensation for loss of dependency by the Tribunal is in M.A.C.A. No. 2227 of 2006 -:
3. :- any way unjust, despite the very persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
6. For transportation, Rs. 10,000/- has been granted. We do not find any reason to enhance the same. The deceased was hospitalized for 17 days and for his pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- has been granted as compensation That also does not appear to be in any way unjust or unreasonable. The entire claim for treatment expenses based on the bills produced has been allowed. For loss of love and affection of the appellants, Rs. 10,000/- has been granted. No enhancement appears to be possible under that head also. As we have already stated, despite the persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are unable to hold that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is unjust or unreasonable. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Sd/- K. Harilal, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.