High Court Kerala High Court

Dr. K.S.Sheeba vs Raju O.T. on 3 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dr. K.S.Sheeba vs Raju O.T. on 3 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1150 of 2007()


1. DR. K.S.SHEEBA, W/O. LATE DR.SUJITH RAJ
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.SOCRYA SUJITH,
3. S.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. DR. M.NADARAJAN,

                        Vs



1. RAJU O.T., S/O. THANKAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KUNJU MARAKKAR, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

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

 Dated :03/03/2010

 O R D E R
             A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         M.A.C.A.No.1150 OF 2007
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 3rd 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. 756/1999of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Pathanamthitta challenges the judgment and award of the

Tribunal granting a compensation of Rs. 9,24,000/- for the loss caused

to them on account of the death of deceased Dr.Sujith Raj in a motor

accident.

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

Deceased Dr.Sujith Raj was an MBBS doctor having a monthly

salary of more than Rs. 12,000/- per month. On April 24, 1999 at

about 12 o’ clock in the noon, deceased was riding his motor cycle

bearing Reg.No.KL-5/E-9270 along Njalikandam-Kalloopara road and

when he reached at Kaviyoor, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-7/M-6327

driven by the first respondent came at a high speed and dashed against

the scooter of the deceased. Deceased died on the spot. According to

the claimants, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

MACA.No.1150/07 Page numbers

of the bus by its driver, the first respondent. Therefore, respondents 1

to 3, the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the offending bus are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who

are the wife and children and dependents of the deceased. They claimed

a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs.

3. First respondent, the driver of the offending bus remained

absent and was set ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondents 2 and 3,

the owner and the insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement

admitting the policy, but contending that there was no negligence on

the part of the driver of the offending bus , the first respondent.

4. Exts.A1 to A16 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 awarded a

compensation of Rs. 9, 24,000/-. The claimants have come up in

appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

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

third respondent, Insurance Company.

6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal

MACA.No.1150/07 Page numbers

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first

respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only

question for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any

enhanced compensation ?

7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.

9,24,000/-. The break up of the award amount is as under :

      Pain and suffering           -Rs. 10,000/-
      Medical expenses             -Rs. 10,000/-
      Loss of love and affection   -Rs. 15,000/-
      Loss to the estate           -Rs.10,000/-
      Loss of dependency           -Rs.8,64,000/-
      Loss of consortium           -Rs. 15,000/-
                                   -----------------
                                   Rs. 9,24,000/-
                                   ==========

8. Counsel for the appellant mainly disputed the adequacy of

compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency. We find

much force in the above contention. The Tribunal fixed the yearly

income of the deceased as Rs. 72,000/- ( 6,000/- x 12) and after

deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, took his annual contribution to

the claimants as Rs. 48,000/-. Taking to account the age of the

deceased as 28, a multiplier of 18 was taken by the Tribunal and

assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 8,64,000/-.

MACA.No.1150/07 Page numbers

9. Counsel for the appellants mainly disputed the income

assessed by the Tribunal. The deceased was an MBBS doctor.

Ext.A10 is his certificate to that effect. In Ext.A11 it is seen that he has

worked as Medical Officer in K.G.M. Hospital, Cumbummettu, Idukki

for a short period from 1/1/1996 to 1/7/1996 on a salary of Rs. 12,000/-

per month. He got temporary appointment through Employment

Exchange as Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department at

P.H.Centre, Vellavoor and that he was obtaining a salary of Rs. 7,500/-

during that period. Ext.A13 is the certificate showing the salary of the

deceased. Ext.A14 is the pay slip and Ext.A16 is the certificate issued

about the particulars of his salary. The claimants produced the copy of

Ext.A16 salary certificate which shows that the deceased was getting a

salary of Rs. 8,409/-. The Tribunal took his monthly income as

Rs. 6000/- which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration

Exts. A14, A15 and A16, we feel that his monthly income can be

reasonably assessed at Rs. 8400/- per month which comes to

Rs. 100,800/- annually. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses,

his annual contribution to the claimants will come to Rs. 67,200/-. The

Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 18 which is not seriously disputed.

MACA.No.1150/07               Page numbers

Thus calculated,    the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs. 12,09,600/- ( 67200 x 18) towards loss of dependency. Thus on

this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of

Rs. 3,45,600/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other

heads appears to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the

same.

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an additional

compensation of Rs. 3,45,600/-. They are entitled to proportionate cost

and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

appeal and thereafter interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

appeal till realisation for the enhanced compensation. 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 a copy of this judgment.

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

sv.

MACA.No.1150/07    Page numbers