Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 8TH BHADRA, 1941 MACA.No.1841 OF 2013 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.404/2007 DATED 23-08-2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 THANKAMANI W/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN K K, RESIDING AT PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE @ MAMATHA, THEKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2 BINOJ P.P. S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN K.K., RESIDING AT PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE @ MAMATHA, THEKUMBHAGAM THRIPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3 MOLGY A.P. W/O.SURESH, VADAKEDATHU HOUSE, NEAR MINI NAGAR, ANGAMALY. 4 BINDU SUMON W/O.SUMON MUTTATHUKATTIL, MULAKULAM NORTH, PIRAVOM. 5 SUCHITHRA PRINCE, W/O.PRINCE, THURUTHUMEL HOUSE, KUMBLANGHI SOUTH, KOCHI-7. BY ADVS. SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTIKATTU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. 2 JOHNYKUTTY A. S/O.ABRAHAM KANKOLIL VEEDU, PARACODE PO, NEAR PANIVEZHA TEMPLE, ADOOR, PIN 691 523 R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A No.1841 of 2013 2
JUDGMENT
The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. One Parameswaran, aged above 65 years died on 09.02.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a
motor accident took place on 08.02.2007. It is stated in the claim petition that he was running a shop. His wife and four grown up children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.5,60,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.1,47,500/- 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.5,000/- per month, in the
M.A.C.A No.1841 of 2013 3 absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency.
5. In the absence of any evidence in support of
the plea as regards the income of the deceased, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/- in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, I am of the view that the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case could have been certainly reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- itself in the context of the accident took place in 2007 as claimed in the proceedings. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662
M.A.C.A No.1841 of 2013 4 (SC)], as the wife of the deceased alone can be regarded as the dependant of the deceased, one half of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of
dependency. As the deceased was aged above 65, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '5'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rs.5000x12x1/2x5). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/-.
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 a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, Rs.15,000/- would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants under that head. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a sum of M.A.C.A No.1841 of 2013 5 Rs.10,000/- by way of additional compensation.
7. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi, and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2007, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.35,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards compensation for loss of consortium. Similarly, in the light of the said decision, the Tribunal should have granted to the claimants Rs.12,500/- towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.12,500/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.17,500/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.42,500/- under those heads.
8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order.
9. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.82,500/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.82,500/- by way of additional
M.A.C.A No.1841 of 2013 6 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. It is made clear that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the additional compensation granted for the period of delay in filing appeal, viz., 647 days, as ordered by this court.
All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE DK