IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 38 of 2007()
1. SARAMMA, W/O.HAKKIM.
... Petitioner
2. ISMAL BEEVI, W/O.LATE IBRAHIM.
3. RASHEED.B.H., S/O.HAKKIM.
4. RAHMAN.B.H., S/O.HAKKIM.
Vs
1. B.A.BENNY, WORKING AT BANTAK
... Respondent
2. BASTIN.P.L., S/O.LONAPPAN,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent :SRI.LAL GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.38 of 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: FEBRUARY 10, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
The challenge in this appeal by the claimant is to the judgment
and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV)
3269/2001 dated January 9, 2006 awarding a compensation of
Rs.3,69,850/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the
death of deceased Hakkim in a motor accident.
2. The facts in brief are these:- The appellants/claimants are
the wife, mother and children of deceased Hakkim. On October 22,
2001 at about 12.45 noon the deceased was riding a scooter bearing
registration No.KL 8K 4619 along Aloor Canal bund road. When he
reached near Aloor Canal Palam, a Maruthi car bearing registration
No.KL 8L 4646 driven by the 2nd respondent came at a high speed and
dashed against the scooter of the deceased. Hakkim sustained
serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while
undergoing treatment in the hospital on October 27, 2001. The
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending Maruthi car by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is the
R.C.owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending
vehicle. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
M.A.C.A.38 of 2007
2
3. The 1st respondent, owner of the offending car, filed a
written statement before the Tribunal disputing the claim and further
contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the
part of the deceased. The 2nd respondent, driver of the offending car,
remained absent and was set ex parte. The 3rd respondent, insurer of
the offending vehicle, admitted the policy.
4. The 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A12
series were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal.
On the side of the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle,
Ext.B1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked. On an appreciation
of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,69,850/-.
In this appeal the claimants have challenged the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending car by the 2nd respondent is also not challenged in this
appeal. Therefore the only point for consideration is whether the
appellants/claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation.
6. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as follows:-
Transportation Rs.2,000 damage to clothing 500 Medical expenses 20,850 M.A.C.A.38 of 2007 3 bystander's expenses 500 funeral expenses 5,000 pain and suffering 20,000 loss of dependency 2,56,000 loss of estate 20,000 loss of consortium 20,000 loss of love and affection 25,000 ---------------- Total 3,69,850 =========
7. In fatal accident cases, the principle for assessing
compensation is clearly enunciated by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma
(Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6
SCC 121. First, the income of the deceased should be determined.
Out of the said income, a deduction should be made in regard to the
amount which the deceased would have spent on himself and the
balance is considered to be his contribution to the dependant family
which constitutes the multiplicand. Having regard to the age of the
deceased, appropriate multiplier should be selected. The annual
contribution to the family when multiplied by such multiplier) is the
loss of dependency to the family. In addition to that a conventional
sum, can be awarded for loss of estate, loss of consoritum, funeral
expenses and cost of transportation of the body and the cost of any
medical treatment to the deceased.
M.A.C.A.38 of 2007
4
8. In the present case the Tribunal has taken the age of the
deceased as 35 years. In postmortem certificate Ext.A3, his age is
shown as 36 years, in Ext.A7 identity card issued by the Election
Commission, his age was shown as 37 years. Therefore his age can
be taken as 37 years. The proper multiplier that has to be adopted in
this case is 16 as done by the Tribunal. As there was no document to
prove the income of the deceased, his monthly income was taken as
Rs.2000/- by the Tribunal. But, in our view, his monthly income can
be taken as Rs.3000/- as even as a coolie he might have used to
earn Rs.100/- per day. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal
expenses, he would have contributed Rs.2000/- to his family, which
comes to Rs.24000/- per annum. Thus calculated, towards loss of
dependency, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.3,84,000/-. Thus, on
this count the claimants are entitled to a further compensation of
Rs.1,28,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for the loss to the
estate, Rs.20,000/- for the loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- for pain
and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, which
appears to be reasonable. Therefore we are not disturbing the same.
10. Thus, the claimants are found entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.1,28,000/-. They are entitled to interest at the
M.A.C.A.38 of 2007
5
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and
proportionate costs. The third respondent, the Insurance Company,
shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appeal is disposed of as found above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-