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
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
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
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
copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the
The Appeal is disposed of as found above.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE