IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1444 of 2004()
1. VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 31, T.C.21/1013,
... Petitioner
2. S.INDRAKUMR RESIDING AT DO.DO.
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. S.KANAGARAJ, S/O.SEELAMUTHU,
3. SATHEESAN,
4. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
5. DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER,
6. K.E.MEENAKSHY, PUTHENVEETIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :20/12/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER,J & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MACA.NO.1444 OF 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the young widow and minor son of deceased
Sailendrakumar who suffered a fatal injury in a road traffic accident that
occurred on June 7, 1998. The deceased was a driver by profession.
Ext.A8 driving licence will show that he was authorised to drive heavy
transport vehicles. Appellant No.1 was aged 24 at the time of the
accident and the deceased was only 34. In fact, appellant No.2 was
born shortly after the accident. Respondent No.6 who is the mother of
deceased Sailendrakumar, has been removed from the party array,
since notice could not be served. In fact, she was claimant No.2 before
the Tribunal.
The tribunal after considering the documentary evidence available
on record found that respondent No.1 Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation Limited to which the offending vehicle belonged shall be
liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,02,000/- towards compensation to the
widow, child and mother of deceased Sailendrakumar. The above award
is under challenge at the instance of the widow and minor son.
The primary grievance of the appellants is that the tribunal
MACA.NO.1444 OF 2004 2
committed serious illegality in taking the monthly notional income of the
deceased as only Rs.2,000/-, though the specific case before the
tribunal was that he had been earning Rs.4,500/- per month. It is true
that the appellant had not produced any document to show that the
deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. But still, having regard to
the fact that the deceased was holding a driving licence which
authorised him to drive heavy transport vehicle, we are of the view that
on a moderate estimate, the monthly income could have been taken as
Rs.3,000/- at least. By reckoning the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- and
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the dependency
compensation can be recalculated thus: 24,000 X 16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-.
The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,56,000/- under the head of
loss of dependency. Therefore, the appellants and the mother of the
deceased shall be entitled to get an additional compensation of
Rs.1,28,000/-.
The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of
pain and suffering. In our view the said amount is too inadequate.
Therefore, an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head.
Similarly, for loss of love and affection the Tribunal has awarded only a
sum of Rs.10,000/-. An additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under
MACA.NO.1444 OF 2004 3
this head also. Thus, the appellants and mother of deceased
Sailendrakumar shall be entitled to get additional compensation of
Rs.1,48,000/-. This amount shall also bear interest at the rate of 9%
from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the
widow, minor son and mother of deceased Sailendrakumar in the
proportion as set out by the Tribunal in the award. The appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.
A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS,JUDGE
pm