Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945 MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.03.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA IN OP(MV)NO.1086/2007] APPELLANTS/ 1.SHAJI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, VALARA P.O., ADIMALY.
2. SUSHAMA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. SHAJI, THOPPIL HOUSE, VALARA P.O., ADIMALY. BY ADVS. SRI.A.CHERIAN SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. MOHANAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, EZHUMKAL HOUSE, VELLATHOOVAL, THALANADU-686580
2. K.M.MEERAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KOCHUKUDY HOUSE, VALARA P.O., 10TH MILE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685561
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, ADIMALY BRANCH-
R3 BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 2
JUDGMENT
The appellants were the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1086/2007 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The said claim petition was
submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of their daughter, aged 18 years, due to the injuries sustained in a Motor Accident that occurred on 03.10.2006. The deceased died after six days of the accident while undergoing treatment. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as a sales girl in a provision store with a monthly income of Rs.4000/-.
2. The accident occurred when the deceased was
travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. KL-07K-8753, it collided with a lorry bearing Registration No. KL-78Q-5715, driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with a 3rd respondent. The bus was owned by the 4 th respondent, driven by the 5th respondent and was insured with the 6th respondent. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.
3. The 3rd respondent- the Insurance Company,
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 3 admitted the coverage of the policy for the lorry but disputed the liability for various reasons. It was also contended that, the vehicle was being used without any valid permit and fitness certificates. The sixth respondent- Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for
the bus, but disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence, as well as the quantum of compensation, was also disputed by them.
4. The said claim petition was tried along with O.P (MV)Nos.14/07, 391/07, and 392/07. The evidence in these cases consists of Exts. A1 to A17 from the side of the claimants and from the side of respondents in Exts. P1 to P3 were
marked. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent in driving the lorry. The contention of violation of policy conditions was found to be not correct. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs. 3,39,804/- and the 3 rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition with proportionate costs.
5. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstance seeking enhancement of compensation. MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 4
6. Heard Sri. A. Cherian learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. P.K.Santhamma, learned counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent.
7. The only dispute in this case relates to the quantum
of compensation. According to the appellants, even though a monthly income of Rs.4000/- was claimed, the Tribunal took the monthly income as only Rs.3,000/-. Besides the same, the multiplier applied was that of the age of the mother and not that of the deceased. Moreover, no addition towards future prospects was also granted. As regards the monthly income, the amount of Rs.3000/- fixed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. It is to be noted in this regard that, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker without any evidence as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. Therefore, Rs. 4,000/- claimed by the appellants as the monthly income of the deceased appears to be reasonable and the same is accepted.
8. In the light of the National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] an addition of 40% has to be made towards future prospects. Apart from the
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 5 above, the multiplier to be applied is 18, considering the age of the deceased, in the light of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). While reassessing the compensation for loss of dependency with the above revised criteria, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.6,04,800/- (4,000+40%)x 12 x 18 x1/2. The amount already awarded by the tribunal was Rs. 2,70,000/-
and thus the addition compensation would come to Rs.3,34,800/-.
9. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,500/-
towards loss of estate whereas the actual amount payable under this head in the light of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the further sum of Rs.12,500/- is awarded under the said head. Similarly an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded under funeral expenses even though the actual amount payable in the light of Pranay Sethi ‘s case (supra) was Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the further sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the said head.
10. The next aspect relates to the compensation for loss
of consortium. In the light of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130], and United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and other [2020 (3) KHC 760], appellants MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 6 being parents of the deceased are entitled to loss of consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each thereby making out the total
sum of Rs.80,000/-. However it is seen that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is already awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection. In Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), it has been held that, when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded no separate compensation needs to be granted for loss of love and affection. Therefore, Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is adjusted against the award passed by this Court for loss of consortium.
Accordingly, the additional compensation for loss of consortium comes to Rs 60,000/- Besides the same it is seen that no amount was granted towards bystander expenses despite the fact that, the deceased had undergone six days impatient treatment before she died. Therefore an amount of Rs.600/- is granted towards bystander expenses. Thus the total additional compensation is fixed as Rs.4,17,900/- (3,34,800+ 12,500+10,000+60,000+600). In the result this appeal is allowed. The award dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P (MV) No. 1086/2007 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.4,17,900/- MACA NO. 2475 OF 2012 7 [Rupees Four Lakhs Seventeen thousand and Nine hundred only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3 rd respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE Asw/pkk