Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2013 1ST BHADRA, 1935 MACA.No. 1383 of 2008 (G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1048 2002 of M.A.C.T., PALAKKAD, DATED 12 11-2007 APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. P.JAYASREE, W/O. LATE SUKUMAR, 44 YEARS, 19/371, EDAYAR STREET MANKAVU, PALAKKAD.
2. RAMYA SREE, D/O.LATE SUKUMAR, 14 YEARS 19 371, EDAYAR STREET, MANKAVU PALAKKAD, REP. BY HER MOTHER 1 T APPELLANT.
3. MANEESHA, D/O.LATE SUKUMAR, 71/2 YEARS DO.DO., REP. BY HER MOTHER 1 T APPELLANT.
4. SARASWATHY, W/O.KUPPUSWAMY AGED 7 YEARS, 209, 4TH STREET GANDHIPURAM, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------- 1. RAMESH, S/O. PALANI SWAMY, 479, SHELA ROAD, OOTY NILAGIRI (DELETED) 2. K.KARMEGHAM, S/O.KARUPPAIAH, 33 YEARS V.R.AUTOMOBILES, TOWN HALL, SOUTH UKKADAM, COIMBATORE.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BANK ROAD, PB.34, OOTACHAMUND NILGIRIS. RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY-VIDE ORDER DATED 3 2.2012 IN I.A. NO. 231/2012. R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKATTU (B/O) (NO MEMO) R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.A.C.A. No. 1383 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of August , 2013. JUDGMENT
Ramakrishnan, J.
Claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of deceased Sukumar in O.P.(MV) No. 1048/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, are the appellants herein. They filed the application for compensation for the death of their bread winner, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. (Subsequently, respondents 1 and 2 are deleted from the party array at the risk of the appellants, as per order dated 3.2.2012 in I.A. No. 231/2012). After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,78,500/- under various heads as follows: Loss of dependency Rs. 2,43,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- Transport expenses Rs. 3,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs. 2,78,500/- Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come before this Court with the above appeal. M.A.C.A. No. 1383 of 2008 -:
2. :- 2. Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the Insurance Company.
3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged only 41 years and was a businessman earning Rs. 5,000/- per mensum. But, only Rs. 2,000/- was taken as notional income by the Tribunal, which is palpably low. Additional documents produced were not considered by the Tribunal. The documents produced are pass books and telephone bills, which would go to show that the income assessed by the Tribunal is far less. The amounts awarded under the heads `loss of love and affection, consortium, pain and suffering' and `loss of estate' are also palpably low. According to the counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled to enhancement on all heads. Counsel for the appellants submitted that there are 4 dependants and the Tribunal has taken 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/4th as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in the absence of any convincing evidence adduced on the side of the appellants, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the monthly income of Rs. 2,000/-. Further as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier to be applied in the age group of 41 years is 14 and not 15 as done by the Tribunal. According to him, the total compensation awarded is just and proper and no M.A.C.A. No. 1383 of 2008 -:
3. :- interference is called for at the hands of this Court.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail.
6. The case of the appellants was that the deceased was a businessman earning Rs. 5,000/- per mensum. But, there is no acceptable evidence adduced on the side of the appellants to prove this fact. Even assuming that production of telephone bills and pass books were taken into consideration, that will not help the Tribunal to assess the actual income earned by the deceased at the time of his death. However, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2001 and considering the status of parties and the cost of living during that period, the monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- fixed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs. 2,500/- per mensum. There are 4 dependants including the aged mother. So, as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the deduction for personal expenses to be made is 1/4th and not 1/3rd as done by the Tribunal. As rightly pointed by the counsel for the Insurance Company, the multiplier to be applied is 14 as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case and not 15 as adopted by the Tribunal. If a recalculation is made on the basis of these inputs, the appellants will be entitled to get Rs. 3,15,000/- (2500 x 12 x 14 x 3/4) instead of Rs.2,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head `loss of dependency' and we award this amount under that head. M.A.C.A. No. 1383 of 2008 -:
4. :- 7. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium. As far as the first claimant is considered, she was aged only 38 years at the time of death of her husband. She has lost support and love and affection of her husband for the remaining period of her life. Considering this, we feel that the same can be enhanced to Rs 20,000/- from Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,000/- for pain and suffering of the deceased. We enhance the same to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs.3,000/-. The claimants 2 and 3 were aged 8 years and 1= respectively at the time of death of their father. They have lost the love and affection and support and guidance of their father at this young age. So, we feel that the amount awarded for love and affection appears to be on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs. 40,000/- from Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,500/- as loss of estate, which we enhance to Rs. 5,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance compensation under other heads, as the amount awarded is just and proper.
8. In all, the appellants will be entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,16,500/- as compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, which the Insurance Company is liable to deposit with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till date of payment. Three months' time is granted to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. The entire additional amount awarded will be shared between appellants 1 to 3 alone as the M.A.C.A. No. 1383 of 2008 -:
5. :- Tribunal has fixed Rs. 50,000/- as the share of the 4th claimant and that appears to be just and reasonable considering her age. The amount due to the minors shall be deposited in a nationalised bank till they attain majority with liberty for the 1st claimant to withdraw the interest accrued for the welfare and maintenance of the children. With the above modification of the award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.