IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1067 of 2009()
1. VILASINI, AGED 44 YEAS, W/O. APPU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.K.PAREED, S/O. KOCHUNNI,
... Respondent
2. N.N.RAJU, S/O. MATHAI,
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
M.A.C.A. No. 1067 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J:
In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act claimant in O.P.(MV) No.605 of 2005 of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur challenges the
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 7, 2008
awarding a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss caused
to the claimant, on account of the death of her son Sunil
Kumar in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:-
Deceased Sunil Kumar was aged 24 at the time of
the accident. He was a Mason and earning Rs.6,000/- per
month, according to the claimant. The claimant is the
mother and sole legal heir of the deceased. She was aged
41 at the time of the accident. On March 13, 2005 at about
8 p.m., deceased Sunil Kumar was cycling along Ponnani-
Chamravattom public road, when he reached at
MACA 1067/2009 2
Pakkathuparamb, a lorry bearing registration No. KL-7G
3096 came at high speed and knocked him down. Sunil
Kumar sustained very serious injuries and he succumbed to
the inujuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the
Amala Hospital, Thrissur. According to the claimant, the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending lorry, the second respondent. The
first respondent as the owner, second respondent as the
driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severely liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant.
3. The first respondent owner of the offending lorry
filed written statement before the Tribunal, admitting the
accident, but contended that the accident occurred due to
the negligence on the part of the deceased. The second
respondent, the driver of the offending lorry, remained
absent. The third respondent filed written statement,
admitting the policy.
4. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7
series were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence
MACA 1067/2009 3
was adduced by the contesting respondents 1 and 3. The
Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
second respondent driver of the offending lorry and
awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization
and costs. The claimant has come up in appeal, challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the third respondent.
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the
Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence
on the part of the second respondent, driver of the
offending lorry, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore,
the only question which arises for consideration is whether
the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation?
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is
as under:-
Transport to hospital : Rs.1,800/-
MACA 1067/2009 4
Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/-
Loss of dependency : Rs.1,80,000/-
Medical bills : Rs.6,200/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.2,000/-
------------------
Rs.2,00,000/-
========
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly
sought enhancement of compensation awarded for the loss
of dependency. He has also pointed out that no amount was
awarded towards loss of love and affection. In the case of
the death of an individual the principles laid down in Sarala
Varma V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ((2009)6
SCC 121) have to be followed in assessing the loss of
dependency and awarding compensation.
9. The claimant as PW1 testified that deceased was
working as a Mason and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month.
The Tribunal took his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, which
appears to be reasonable. Taking into consideration the fact
that he was an unmarried person, his contribution to the
family was taken as Rs.1,000/- by the Tribunal, which, in our
view, is not correct. The deceased was the only son of the
claimant. He would have looked after the claimant in her
MACA 1067/2009 5
old age. The claimant was aged 41 at the time of the
accident and deceased was aged only 24. Taking into
consideration the above fact, we are of the view that only
1/3rd of the income of the claimant need be deducted for his
personal expenses. Thus calculated his monthly contribution
to his family would be at Rs.2,000/- per month (Rs.24,000/-
per year).
10. The deceased was aged 24 at the time of the
accident and claimant was his mother aged 41. As the
deceased was the only son of the claimant, the Tribunal
took multiplier as 15 which appears to be reasonable. Thus
calculated for the loss of dependency the claimant is
entitled to compensation of RS.3,60,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x
15). Thus on this count the claimant is entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-.
11. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for
the loss of love and affection. Deceased being the only son
of the claimant, we feel that compensation of Rs.15,000/-
would be reasonable on this count. As regards the
compensation awarded under other heads, we feel that the
MACA 1067/2009 6
same is reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the
same.
12. Thus, the claimant is entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-. She is entitled to interest @
9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and
proportionate costs. The third respondent being the insurer
of the offending vehicle, shall deposit the amount within two
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment
before the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified
to that effect.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found
above.
A.K.BASHEER,
JUDGE.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI,
JUDGE.
mn