Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/23RD AGRAHAYANA,1945 MACA NO. 1101 OF 2010 OP(MV) 682/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 4:
1 KUSUMAM, W/O.LATE VIJAYAN, VIJAYENDRA BHAVAN,WARD NO.VII, PATTANAKKAD P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2 VIJAYA, D/O.LATE VIJAYAN, VIJAYENDRA BHAVAN,WARD NO.VII, PATTANAKKAD P.O,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 3 VIJAYENDRA KUMAR, S/O.LATE VIJAYAN VIJAYENDRA BHAVAN,WARD NO.VII, PATTANAKKAD P.O,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.R.RAMESH
RESPONDENTS: 1 SHEEJA, D/O SHANKAR, 14/993, KEERILPATH COCHIN, ERNAKULAM-682 001. 2 BHARATHAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, MUTTEPARAMBU WARD NO.II,KUTHIYATHODU P.O, PIN - 688 533. 3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, N.S.S UNION BUILDING, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2 :
JUDGMENT
The appellants are petitioners 2 to 4 in OP(MV) No.682/2003 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha.
2. The said claim petition was initially filed by one Vijayan claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident
that occurred on 29.12.2002. According to the claimant, the accident occurred when the bicycle ridden by him was hit by a car bearing registration No.KLU/4399 driven by the 2 nd respondent. The said vehicle was owned by the 1 st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained serious injuries and while undergoing treatment for the same, he died on 12.12.2005, i.e., after three years. The appellants herein were impleaded as the additional petitioners in the claim petition and the claim was converted into a case for compensation for death on the ground that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries
sustained in the accident. According to the appellants, the deceased was a toddy shop contractor with an annual income of Rs.55,000/-.
3. The 2nd respondent contested the matter by filing a written statement and admitted the accident but disputed the :3 :
negligence on his part. The 3 rd respondent insurance company filed written statement admitting the coverage of policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. They also disputed the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.
4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of
PW1 to 5 and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked from the side of the appellants. As court exhibits, Exts.C1 and Exts.X1 to X3 were marked. From the side of the respondents, Ext.B1 insurance policy was marked.
5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and being the insurer, the 3 rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.3,00,000/- and the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard Sri. Liju M.P., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. P.Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel :4 : appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company.
7. The only question that arises here is relating to the
quantum of compensation. It was contended by the learned counsel that the monthly income taken by the tribunal was extremely on the lower side. The deceased claimed to be a toddy shop contractor with an annual income of Rs.55,000/-. The tribunal took the monthly
income as Rs.2500/- and calculated the compensation. To substantiate the monthly income, they relied on Ext.A1 certificate issued from the Village office wherein it was certified that, he was getting an annual income of Rs.45,000/- from his avocation and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- from his property. Besides the same, he also relied on Ext.A6 certificate of registration wherein it is shown that he was conducting a small coir manufacturing unit as well.
8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I find that the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- is on the lower side. As per Ext.A1, the Village Officer had certified that deceased was getting an amount of Rs.4,500/- as monthly income from his business. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2002, I am of the view that the said monthly income is reasonable and it can be accepted. As the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of the
:5 : accident, 10% of the same has to be added towards future prospects. While assessing the compensation, by keeping the other parameters adopted by the Tribunal intact, the amount of compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,56,400 [(4500+10%)x12x9x2/3]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal towards pecuniary loss caused to the additional petitioners is Rs.1,80,000/- and thus the additional amount would come to Rs.1,76,400/-[356400-180000].
9. Towards loss of consortium, the appellants are entitled
for Rs.40,000/- each being the wife and the children of the deceased 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]. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is to be awarded under this head. But the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head was only Rs.10,000/-. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent Insurance Company that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection which was not warranted in the light of Satinder Kaur. The said contention is to be accepted as it was held in the said decision that, when
:6 : compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, no further amount is to be granted for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the said amount is adjusted towards the amount awarded by this Court towards loss of consortium. Thus, the additional compensation for
loss of consortium would come to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. But, this is a case in which the deceased continued in treatment for a long period of three years. It is to be noted that the accident was on 29.12.2002 and he died on 12.12.2005 and the Tribunal has already
found that the death was due to the accident. Therefore, the sufferings of the petitioner for a long period of three years has to be compensated and considering the extent of the period, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded for the said purpose. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses was only Rs.3,000/- and therefore, a further sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded in the light of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. No amount is seen awarded towards the loss of estate and therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the said head.
:7 :
10. Thus the total additional compensation receivable by the
appellants is determined as Rs. 3,28,400/- [1,76,400 + 1,00,000 + 25,000 + 12,000 + 15,000] In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings this appeal is allowed. The award dated 10.12.2009 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(M.V) No.682/2003 is modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs. 3,28,400/-(Rupees three lakhs twenty eight thousand and four hundred only), and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3 rd respondent Insurance company along 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 ncd/scs