Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Annamkutty vs A.V.Suresh on 8 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 562 of 2008()


1. ANNAMKUTTY, W/O.LATE LONAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ELSY, D/O.LATE LONAPPAN, NJERLELY HOUSE,
3. DAVIS, S/O.LATE LONAPPAN, NJERLELY
4. SILMONY, D/O.LATE LONAPPAN,
5. VALSA, D/O.LATE LONAPPAN, NJERLELY
6. SHAINY, D/O.LATE LONAPPAN,
7. JAINY, D/O.LATE LONAPPAN, NJERLELY

                        Vs



1. A.V.SURESH, S/O.VELUKUTTY, AREERITHA
                       ...       Respondent

2. MURALI, S/O.RAJAN, THANDASSERY HOUSE,

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY

                For Respondent  :SRI.VPK.PANICKER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :08/03/2010

 O R D E R
             A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        M.A.C.A. No.562 OF 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the

claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1480/2002 of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda challenge the judgment and award of the

Tribunal dated October 22, 2007 awarding a compensation of

Rs. 1,36,900/- for the loss caused to him on account of the death of

one Lonappan in a motor accident.

2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :

Deceased Lonappan was aged 58 at the time of the accident. He

was a manual labourer earning Rs. 3000/- per month. Claimants are his

wife and major children. On August 17, 2002 while the deceased was

walking along the side of the road, he was knocked down by an

Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/H 6396 driven by the second

respondent. The deceased sustained very serious injuries and he

succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the

MACA.No.562/2008 2

hospital. According to the claimants, accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the offending autorickshaw by second

respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the

driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending

autorickshaw are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

claimants. Claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,45,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending

autorickshaw remained absent and were set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

The third respondent the insurer of the offending autorickshaw filed a

written statement admitting the policy.

4. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants

before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third

respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending

autorickshaw by second respondent and awarded a compensation of

Rs. 1,36,900/-. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging

the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the

MACA.No.562/2008 3

counsel for the Insurance Company.

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 is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only

question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are

entitled to any enhanced compensation ?

7. The case of the claimants is that deceased was a manual

labourer earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. As no document was produced

before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took his monthly income as

Rs. 1800/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 8, the Tribunal

awarded Rs. 1,15,200/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal

awarded Rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 3,000/- for funeral

expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 8,700/- for

medical expenses. Taking into account the fact that the deceased was a

labourer aged 58, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably

estimated at Rs. 2,500/- which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. After

deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, remaining Rs. 20,000/- per

annum can be taken as his annual contribution to his family. The

MACA.No.562/2008 4

multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 8 is not seriously disputed. Thus

calculated towards loss of dependency, claimants are entitled to a

compensation of Rs. 160,000/-. Therefore, on this count, the claimants

are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 44,800/-

8. For pain and suffering endured by the deceased, Rs. 5,000/-

was granted by the Tribunal which appears to be very low. Taking into

consideration the fact that the deceased died from the hospital, we feel

that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be adequate on this count.

Regarding the compensation awarded under other heads, we feel that

the same is reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same.

9. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional

compensation of Rs.49,800/- . They are entitled to interest @ 9% per

annum from the date of petition till realisation from the date of petition

till realisation and proportionate cost. The entire compensation should

be given to the first claimant, the widow of the deceased as other

claimants are not the dependents of deceased. The third respondent

being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount

before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of the

MACA.No.562/2008 5

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

sv.

MACA.No.562/2008 6


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.249 seconds.