Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE3D DAY OF OCTOBER201311TH ASWINA, 1935 MACA.No. 1965 of 2010 (C) -------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P(MV).NO.374/2006 DATED1603/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,IRINJALAKUDA] ................ APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P(MV): ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVAKI, W/O.LATE APPU, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHAZHIKKAD THEVARPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. SADANANDAN, S/O.LATE APPU, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHAZHIKKAD THEVARPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3. GIRIJA, D/O.LATE APPU, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHAZHIKKAD THEVARPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4. SATHEESAN, S/O.LATE APPU, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHAZHIKKAD THEVARPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5. OMANA, D/O.LATE APPU, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHAZHIKKAD THEVARPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
6. JAYAN, S/O.LATE APPU, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHAZHIKKAD THEVARPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH. Prv. M.A.C.A. NO.1965/2010-C: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV): --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.JAISON, S/O.PAULOSE, KANNUKADAN HOUSE, MURIKKINGAL.P.O- 680 699.
2. PAUL, S/O.DEVASSIKUTTY, MANGALAM HOUSE, OMPATHUNGAL, MATTATHUR.P.O- 676 528.
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 307. R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0310-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
================== M.A.C.A.No. 1965 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
K.Ramakrishnan, J.: The claimants in O.P.(M.V).No.374/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, are the appellants herein. The appellants, who are the wife and children of deceased Appu, aged 70 years, filed the application for compensation for the death of their breadwinner, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. 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 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of ` 1,00,350/- on various heads as follows: Amount Head of claim awarded ` 1 Medical expenses 21,450.00 2 Bystander's expenses 900.00 3 Transportation expenses 2,000.00 4 Pain and suffering 15,000.00 5 Funeral expenses 3,000.00 6 Loss of consortium 8,000.00 7 Loss of dependency 50,000.00 Total 100,350.00 M.A.C.A.1965/10 - :
2. :- Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants have come before this Court with the above appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a manual labourer and getting ` 5,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken only ` 15,000/- per annum as his income, which is on the lower side. The amount awarded under the head, loss of consortium, is also on the lower side. No amount was awarded under the head, loss of estate. It is also submitted that considering the period of treatment, the amounts awarded under the other heads are also on the lower side. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled to enhancement on all heads.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that considering the age of the deceased, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties in detail. M.A.C.A.1965/10 - :
3. :- 6. It is true that the deceased was aged 70 years. Though he was claimed to be a manual labourer and getting ` 5,000/- per month, no evidence adduced on the side of the appellants to prove his income or avocation. But the Legislature has fixed the income of a non-earning member in the year 1994 as ` 15,000/- per annum. The accident in this case happened on 23.1.2006. Considering these facts, we feel that the annual income of the deceased can be taken as ` 24,000/-. If income is taken as ` 24,000/- per annum, the appellants will be entitled to get ` 80,000/- under the head, loss of dependency, instead of ` 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The 1st appellant was aged 65 years at the time of death of her husband. She had lost her husband in the late years of her life. Leaving the companion at the old age is more painful. So considering this fact, the amount awarded under the head, loss of consortium, is on the lower side. We enhance the same to ` 15,000/- from ` 8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. No amount was awarded under the head, loss of estate and we award a conventional amount of ` 5,000/- under that head. We do not find any reason to interfere with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and M.A.C.A.1965/10 - :
4. :- proper. In all, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional amount of ` 42,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the 3rd respondent insurance company is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till date of payment. Two months' time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount as well. Considering the fact that other appellants are majors, additional compensation awarded is directed to be paid to the 1st appellant, who is the wife of the deceased. We are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding recovery right given to the insurance company from the 1st respondent for this additional compensation as well. With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. To Judge.