Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013 13TH ASHADHA, 1935 MACA.No. 941 of 2013 () ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 472 2007 ON THE THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA ------------------------ APPELLANTS/PETIOTIONERS:
1. SOSAMMA W/O. LATE VARKEY, AGED 6 YEARS, KANAMPURATHUKUDY HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.
2. SHINE K. VARKEY, S/O LATE VARKEY, AGED 3 YEARS, KANAMPURATHUKUDY HOUSE, THRIKARIYOOR P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM.
3. SHINY W/O SAJU, AGED 3 YEARS, THARAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MALIPARA P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS KOOTHATTUKULAM) 4. SHAIBY, W/O PETER, AGED 3 YEARS, PATTATHANATHU HOUSE, EDAYAR P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------- 1. PAREED N.E., @ ABBAS S/O ISMAIL, MALEPARAMBIL HOUSE, RANDARKARA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA”
673.
2. VINOD K.S., S/O. SREEDHARAN, KOONUNKAL HOUSE, KALLORKADU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA 68 681.
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. 1, MATTETHARA BUILDINGS, 3RD FLOOR, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM ”
001. R3 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI R3 BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jm/ S. SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.941 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT
S. Siri Jagan, J The appellants herein are the wife and grown up children of deceased Varkey. Varkey, at the age of 61 years, died in a motor accident, caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle, driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The appellants filed O.P.(M.V). No.472/2007, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming compensation for the death of their bread winner. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows: Sl. Head of claim Amount No. awarded 1 Loss of dependency/ loss of earnings 140000 2 Pain and suffering”
3. Loss of estat”
4. Funeral and allied expense”
5. Transportation charges 1000 Loss of consortium (to the 1st 6 petitioner) 15000 Loss of love and affection (to the 7 petitioners 2 to
4) 15000 Total 183500 M.A.C.A. No.941 o”
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, appellants have filed this appeal, seeking enhanced compensation.
2. The first contention raised by the appellants is that, the deceased was earning 5,000/- by self employment. But, the tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as only 2,500/-, which is on the lower side. The 2nd contention is that, for loss of estate only 2,500/- has been awarded. The further contention is that for loss of love and affection of the appellants 2 to 4 only 15,000/- has been awarded. The appellants submit that no amount has been awarded for mental shock and agony suffered by the appellants, on the death of their bread winner. No amounts have been awarded for the damage to the vehicle is the last contention.
3. We have heard the rival contentions. The appellants have not adduced any evidence, whatsoever in support of their claims. There is nothing on record to show what was the monthly income of the deceased. He was 61 years old at the time of the accident. In the M.A.C.A. No.941 o”
3. absence of any evidence, regarding his avocation or income, we cannot fault the tribunal for having fixed a notional income of 2,500/-. Therefore, we do no find any merit in the challenge against the monthly income fixed by the tribunal. Only the first appellant alone is the dependant of the deceased, insofar as, respondents 2, 3 and 4 are grown up children of the deceased aged 32, 30 and 28 years respectively. We do not find any infirmity in the assessment of 15,000/-, as compensation for their loss of love and affection on account of the death of their father. The deceased being a man of 61 years, compensation for loss of estate of 2,500/- also does not appear to be on the lower side. The tribunal has awarded compensation of 5,000/- for pain and suffering. Apart from that, no amount can be awarded towards mental shock and agony of the appellants. The appellants have not adduced any evidence regarding the damages to their vehicle, except marking the report of the AMVI, which is not sufficient to assess any compensation for the alleged M.A.C.A. No.941 o”
4. damages to the vehicle. The appellants have limited their claim to 2,00,000/- and out of the same, the tribunal has awarded 1,83,500/-. We are satisfied that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the appellants for the death of the deceased. Therefore, we don't find any merits in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ss