Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941 MACA.No.1820 OF 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) No. 1129/2011 DATED 27.11.2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 PIOUS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE SOLOMAN, VALAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH WARD-3, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA (F/O. DECEASED MARY TENSIAR @ NEETHU) 2 ANNIE, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. PIOUS, VALAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPALLY P.O., KADKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYAT WARD-3 CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA (M/O. DECEASED MARY 3 MARY GRACY, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. PIOUS, VALAYIL HOUSE, KADKKARAPPALLY P.O., KADKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH WARD-3 CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA (S/O. DECEASED MARY BY ADVS. SHRI. A.T.ANIL KUMAR AND SMT.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 BERNAD K.J. S/O. JOSEPH, KUDIAMSSERY HOUSE, THAICKAL P.O., KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYAT WARD NO.14, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688529 2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, NEAR TOWN HALL, M.O. WARD, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SHRI. S.SHANAVAS KHAN, R2 BY ADV. SHRI. V.P.K. PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the MACA No.1820 of 2015 2 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. One Mary Tensiar, aged 19 years died on 07.09.2011 on
account of injuries sustained in a motor accident took place on 01.09.2011. It is stated in the claim petition that she was a student and tuition teacher. Her parents and sister were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.19,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the
claimants a sum of Rs.7,27,390/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has notionally reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.4,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency.
5. The Tribunal found that the deceased was earning from her
avocation as a tuition teacher and compensation for loss and dependency was computed on that basis. In so far as the deceased was an under graduate student, according to me, even otherwise the Tribunal could have granted compensation for loss of dependency, after arriving an income for the deceased notionally. Having regard to the facts and
MACA No.1820 of 2015 3 circumstances, according to me, the Tribunal could have granted compensation to the claimants notionally fixing income to the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the deceased was unmarried, one hald of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged below 40, 40% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future
prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 19, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '18'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.9,07,200/-(Rs.6000x12x1/2x140/100x18). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- towards compensation under that head, the
claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,31,200/-.
6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in
all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.20,000/- under that head. As the death was after about 6 days, according to me, the appropriate compensation to be granted is Rs.25,000/-. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of additional compensation.
7. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, the Tribunal should have granted Rs.15,000/- towards
MACA No.1820 of 2015 4 compensation for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head funeral expenses. The claimants are,
therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- under those heads.
8. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and
affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others (2018 ACJ 2782), I am of the view that the parents and sister of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of additional compensation.
9. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,61,200/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a
sum of Rs.3,61,200/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof.
All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE pkk