IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 61 of 2005(C)
1. S.ANANDAVALLY AMMA, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. R.REJITHLAL, AGED 37 YEARS,
3. R.SUJITH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.LATE
4. AMMUKUTTY AMMA P.AMMU AMMA, AGED 77
Vs
1. BAIJU SIMON, S/O.ANTONY, EARESSERIL
... Respondent
2. VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE,
3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :29/07/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 29, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
One Ramachandran Nair, a Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail
Service at Ernakulam, died in a motor accident that occurred on July
3, 1998 at 6.30 a.m. at Aroor Church Junction. The accident
happened while he was about to get into a private bus bearing
Regn.No.KL-7/K-6498, and before he could fully step into the bus, 1st
respondent, conductor of the bus, gave double bell and the driver of
the bus took the bus forward, as a result of which he fell down and
sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries sustained
while undergoing treatment in the hospital on July 5, 1998.
2. The claimants who are the wife, children and mother of
the deceased filed the OP before the Tribunal under Sec.166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs.16 lakhs alleging
negligence against the 1st respondent, conductor of the offending bus.
Respondents 1 and 2, the conductor and the owner of the offending
bus, remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3, insurer
of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy, but
contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the
M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005
2
deceased.
3. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were
marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. On the side
of the contesting 3rd respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. On an
appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.4,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till realisation and also a cost of Rs.4500/-. The claimants
have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Heard counsel for the appellants/claimants and the Insurance
Company.
5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st
respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only
question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is
entitled to any enhanced compensation.
6. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as
under:
loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/-
loss of consortium, love and affection etc. 15,000/-
medical expenses 13,000/-
funeral expenses 3,000/-
pain and sufferings 5000/-
M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005
3
7. Counsel for the appellant sought enhancement of the
compensation for the loss of dependency. The Tribunal took the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-, which comes to
Rs.72000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal
expenses, Rs.48,000/- was taken as his annual contribution to his
family. Adopting a multiplier of 9, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.4,32,000/- for the loss of dependency. Ext.A7 salary certificate of
the deceased shows that he was drawing a salary of Rs.8377/-.
Therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking his monthly
income as Rs.6000/-. The Tribunal took the multiplier as 9 only. As
the deceased was aged 51 at the time of the accident, we feel that a
multiplier of 11 would be reasonable in this case. Thus calculated, for
the disability caused the claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.5,28,000/- for loss of dependency. Thus the claimants are entitled
to an additional compensation of Rs.96,000/- on this count.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering
endured by the deceased. In the circumstances of the case we feel
that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable on this count.
Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.10,000/- on this count. As regards the compensation awarded
under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore
we are not disturbing the same.
M.A.C.A. 61 of 2005
4
9. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation
of Rs.1,06,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per
annum, which is very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation on the
compensation already awarded and on the enhanced compensation
and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the
offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.
The appeal is disposed of as found above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-