IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 427 of 2007()
1. CHANDRAN, 53 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
2. JANAKI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN,
3. ANITHA, 26 YEARS, D/O.CHANDRAN,
Vs
1. T.ALIKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MARAKKAR,
... Respondent
2. T.VALEETH, S/O.ALIKUTTY HAJI,
3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :26/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2007
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
The only son of appellants 1 and 2 sustained fatal injuries in a motor
accident on 25.1.2003. He was driving a goods autorickshaw. Lorry driven by
the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third
respondent came from behind and hit the goods autorickshaw, according to the
appellants due to its rash and negligent driving by the second respondent.
Appellants who are the parents and sister of the deceased claimed Rs.6,12,000/-
as compensation. Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellants regarding
the negligence and awarded Rs.2,44,000/- as compensation to be realized from
respondents 1 to 3. Third respondent was directed to deposit the amount. It is
contended in this appeal that compensation awarded is low.
2. Heard.
3. It is proved in the evidence that deceased, a bachelor was aged 26
years at the time of accident. He was a driver by occupation and in fact, was
driving goods autorickshaw at the time of accident. Tribunal has fixed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. Considering the age and
occupation of the deceased, we are satisfied that monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal is reasonable.
MACA No.427/2007
2
4. Appellants 1 and 2 were aged 50 and 45 years, respectively at the
time of accident. Third appellant, the sister was aged 23 years then. Learned
Tribunal has taken 13 as the multiplier. Though it is contended by learned
counsel for appellants that the multiplier fixed is low since according to the
learned counsel, age of the deceased should have been taken into account for
the purpose, we are unable to accept that contention in view of the settled
position of law that in the case of death of unmarried persons, the age of the
dependents has to be looked into for determining the multiplier. Tribunal has
correctly taken 13 as the multiplier.
5. Though Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the
deceased, for the purpose of assessing compensation payable for loss of
contribution and dependency, only Rs.1,500/- per month was taken. Tribunal
observed in paragraph 13 of the award that since the deceased was a bachelor,
he would have spent considerable amount for his own needs, he would have got
married within a few years, thereafter contribution to the appellants 1 and 2
would come down and therefore, Rs.1,500/- per month is taken as the
contribution. It is true that the deceased would have got married in the near
future, had he not suffered fatal injuries. At the same time, possibility of his
getting enhanced income in future and the fact that he was the only son of
appellants 1 and 2 has also to be taken into account. Therefore, there was no
justification in fixing the monthly contribution at Rs.1,500/-. Since the Tribunal
found which we have concurred that the monthly income of the deceased was
Rs.3,000/-, after deducting one third for personal expenses, contribution to the
MACA No.427/2007
3
appellants should have been fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month. We accordingly fix
contribution at Rs.2,000/- per month. Taking contribution at Rs.2,000/- per
month, compensation payable for loss of dependency and contribution comes to
Rs.3,12,000 (2,000x12x13) as against Rs.2,34,000/- awarded by the learned
Tribunal. Appellants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.78,000/- as
additional compensation on that count.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel that compensation
awarded for pain and suffering is low and that compensation was not awarded
for loss of love and affection. Deceased had an instantaneous death.
Therefore, we are not inclined to think that compensation awarded for pain and
suffering required enhancement. So far as claim for compensation for loss of
love and affection is concerned, considering the total amount of compensation
to which appellants are found entitled, we are not inclined to award any further
sum on that count. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the appellants
is Rs.78,000/-. That amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of application till realization.
This Appeal therefore, is allowed in part. Over and above the
compensation already awarded by the Tribunal, appellants are allowed to realise
a further sum of Rs.78,000/- (Rupees Seventyeight thousand only) as
additional compensation with 7.5% interest per annum from date of application
till realisation from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent
being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit that amount in the
Tribunal and on such deposit, appellants are allowed to withdraw the said
MACA No.427/2007
4
amount in the ratio directed by the learned Tribunal.
J.B.KOSHY,
JUDGE.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks