IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 163 of 2007()
1. V.V.USHAKUMARI, W/O LATE MOHANAN,
... Petitioner
2. ANOOP MOHAN, S/O LATE MOHANAN,
3. ASWATHI MOHAN, D/O LATE MOHANAN,
Vs
1. M.HYDERALI, S./O SAINUDEEN HAJI,
... Respondent
2. KARUPPAYIL NISSAM,S/O VEERAN,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
4. C.M.ANTONY, S/O C.A.MATHEW,
5. MOHANA SUNDARAM, S/O KANDAYYA,
6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
7. KALLIANI RAMAN, W/O RAMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :SRI.C.M.ANDREWS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :26/07/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 26, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)120/2005 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. They are the wife,
children and mother of one deceased Mohanan who died in a motor
accident. On February 10, 1998 while the deceased was travelling in
a bus bearing Regn.No.KLL-21 from Manjeri to Nilambur and reached
at Mampad at about 9.40 a.m. the bus collided head on with a lorry
bearing Regn.No.TN-43/5373. The deceased sustained serious injuries
and he died on the spot. Alleging negligence against the 2nd
respondent, driver of the bus, and the 5th respondent, driver of the
lorry, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act claiming a compensation of Rs.9,11,500/-.
2. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the bus,did not
contest the case. Respondents 3 and 6 are the same Insurance
Company. They filed a joint written statement admitting the policy of
the respective vehicles. Respondents 4 and 5, owner and driver of the
lorry involved in the accident, filed a joint written statement
admitting the accident, but attributing negligence to the 2nd
respondent, driver of the bus.
M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007 2
3. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the
side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by
the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the
Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of 2nd
respondent, the driver of the offending bus, and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation. 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 2nd
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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.
The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under:
transport to hospital Rs.2,500/-
pain and suffering 7,500/-
loss of dependency 6,00,000/-
loss of consortium 7,500/-
funeral expenses 2,500/-
M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007 3
7. The Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the
compensation awarded for the loss of dependency, for loss of
consortium and for loss of love and affection. The deceased was aged
43 at the time of the accident as proved by Ext.A4 copy of the
relevant page of the SSLC book. The Tribunal took the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- and deducting 1/3rd for his
personal expenses, took Rs.2000/- as his monthly contribution to his
family. A multiplier of 15 was adopted and a compensation of
Rs.5,40,000/- and another compensation of Rs.60,000/- was awarded
for the loss of dependency (total Rs.6 lakhs). It is seen from Ext.A9
certificate issued by the Manager of Nilambur Branch of the Indian
Bank that the deceased was working there and was earning a salary of
Rs.7075/- p.m. Since the deceased was a bank employee, we feel
that the salary certificate Ext.A9 can be accepted and his monthly
income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.7075/-. After deducting 1/3rd
for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.4717/- can be
taken as his monthly contribution to his family. The multiplier
adopted as 15 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the
loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.8,49,060/- (4717x12x15). Thus on this count the claimant is
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,49,060/-.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7500/- for loss of consortium and
M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007 4
for loss of love and affection which appears to be quite inadequate.
Taking into consideration the age of claimants 1 to 3, the wife and
children of the deceased, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
for loss of consortium and a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for loss of
love and affection would be reasonable. Thus on this count the
claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.17,500/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other
heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not
disturbing the same.
9. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation
of Rs.2,66,560/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation 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/-