IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 883 of 2002(B)
1. DARIYA W/O. TITUS (LATE)
... Petitioner
2. DIANA (MINOR) D/O. TITUS (LATE)
3. DISNA (MINOR), D/O. TITUS (LATE)
4. JOSEPHEENA D/O. TITUS (LATE)
Vs
1. S.SHEREEF S/O. SULAIMAN RAWTHER,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
3. THRASIA, VAYALIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU,
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.HAKIM SHAH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :01/01/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ.
————————————–
M.F.A.No. 883 of 2002
—————————————
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Husband of the first appellant died in a motor accident.
While he was driving a taxi car, lorry driven by first respondent in a
rash and negligent manner hit the car. As a result of the accident,
he received fatal injuries and he was rushed to Sanker’s Hospital,
Kollam and from there to Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram, but, he died before reaching the destination.
He left behind his wife, three minor children and aged mother and
they filed application for compensation. All the three minor children
were small girls. Fifth appellant was a new born child. Total amount
awarded by the tribunal was only Rs.2,10,000/-. Only quantum of
compensation is disputed in this appeal.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was
getting a monthly income of Rs.3,500/- as a professional taxi driver.
He was also the Secretary of Taxi Drivers’ Association and getting a
stipend. Ext.A6 salary certificate shows that his fixed monthly
income was Rs.2,000/-. Apart from that, he was getting batta and
M.F.A.No.883/2002 2
allowances. He was a professional taxi driver with proper licence,
badge etc. Rs.2,000/- was his fixed monthly income apart from the
batta depending upon the number of kilometres he was driving. He
was maintaining a large family. We are of the opinion that as a taxi
driver, he may get Rs.100/- per day including fixed income and
allowances and for 24 days, he will get work for at least 24 days and
so Rs.2,400/- as monthly income. After deducting one-third for
personal expenses, Rs.1,600/- can be fixed as the loss of family
contribution. The tribunal has fixed 16 as the multiplier as he was
aged 35 years. Taking second schedule as a guidance, we are aof
the opinion that no enhancement is required in the multiplier.
Therefore, compensation for loss of dependency to the family will be
Rs.1600 x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,07,200/-. The tribunal has allowed only
Rs.1,79,200/-. Therefore, the dependents are entitled to an
additional amount of Rs.1,28,000/- over and above the amount
decreed by the tribunal. The above amount of Rs.1,28,000/- should
be deposited by the second respondent insurance company with
7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. Out of the
above amount, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to fourth appellant and
balance amount is payable in equal proportion to the widow (1st
appellant) and three daughters (2nd, 3rd and 5th appellants). The
M.F.A.No.883/2002 3
share due to the first appellant can be disbursed immediately, on
deposit. Amount due to appellant Nos.2, 3 and 5 (daughters) can be
disbursed to them when they attain the age of 21 or at the time of
their marriage whichever is earlier. Till that time, the amount
should be deposited in a nationalised bank.
The appeal is allowed in part.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
K. Hema
Judge
vaa
M.F.A.No.883/2002 4
J.B. KOSHY AND
K.HEMA,JJ.
————————————-
M.F.A. No. 883 of 2002
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:18th December, 2007