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.1938 OF 2013 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.366/2012 DATED 08-05-2013 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 FAUSIA, AGED 36 YEARS W/O.NAISAMUDEEN KUNJU, FAIZAL MANZIL, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN - 690524, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 FAIZAL AGED 12 YEARS S/O.NAISAMUDEEN KUNJU, FAIZAL MANZIL, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN - 690 524, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3 FEMINA MOL AGED 6 YEARS S/O.NAISAMUDEEN KUNJU, FAIZAL MANZIL, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN - 690 524, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4 RUKHIYA BEEVI AGED 64 YEARS D/O.ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, KALEEKKAVILAYIL, MOTTACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN 690524. BY ADVS. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.ABE RAJAN.K SRI.SHANE WILFRED MORIS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER FAIR EXPORTS INDIA PVT., LTD., TC 35/987, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008. 2 SWAYAMBHULINGAM THIRAVIYAM NIVAS, CHANTHAVILA, KARIPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, VAVANEETHA BUILDING, MUKKADA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 691 501. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ---------------------------------------------
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 Naisamudeen Kunju, aged 44 years died on 02.10.2011 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a
motor accident took place on 05.09.2011. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a fruit vendor. His mother, wife and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- 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.7,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- 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.7,000/- itself in the context of the accident took place in 2011 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 (SC)], as the dependants of the deceased were four in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged above 40 and below 50, 25% 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 44, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '14'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.11,02,500/- (Rs.7000x12x3/4x125/100x14). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.7,56,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,46,500/-.
6. 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 2011, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.40,000/- 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.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.25,000/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.45,000/- under those heads.
7. 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) and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2011, I am of the view that the mother and children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, totalling to Rs.1,20,000/-. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- by way of additional compensation.
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.5,06,500/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the
claimants a sum of Rs.5,06,500/- 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 DK