IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1089 of 2004()
1. ELSAMMA JOSE, W/O. JOSEPH JOSE,
... Petitioner
2. JOICE JOSE, AGED 20,
3. JOBY JOSE, S/O. JOSEPH JOSE,
4. JOSSY JOSE, D/O. JOSEPH JOSE,
Vs
1. K.J.JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3. JOSEPH P.C., S/O. CHACKO,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU
For Respondent :SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :16/06/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
M.A.C.A.No. 1089 of 2004
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1601 of 1996 of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam challenge the
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 16, 2003
awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,23,000/- for the loss
caused to them, on account of the death of Joseph Jose in a
motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:-
Deceased Joseph Jose was aged 40 at the time of the
accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a
Contractor. Claimants are his wife and minor children. On
May 12, 1996 at 8.30 p.m. deceased Joseph Jose was
travelling in a jeep bearing KL-5C/5112, driven by the third
respondent. When the jeep reached at Kuzhithura, it dashed
against the back side of a bullock cart. Deceased Joseph
MACA 1089/2004 2
Jose sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the
injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the
hospital. According to the claimants, the accident occurred
due to the negligence on the part of the third respondent,
driver of the jeep. The first respondent as the owner, second
respondent as the insurer and third respondent as the
driver of the offending jeep are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation to the claimants who are the legal
heirs and dependents of the deceased.
3. Respondents 1 and 3, owner and driver of the
offending jeep, remained absent and were set ex parte by
the Tribunal. The second, respondent insurer of the
offending vehicle, filed a written statement, admitting the
policy.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A6 were
marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was
adduced by contesting second respondent. The Tribunal, on
an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of
Rs.3,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the
MACA 1089/2004 3
date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The
claimants have come up in appeal, challenging the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and
the learned 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 third respondent, driver of the offending
jeep, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only
question which arises for consideration is whether the
claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ?
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.3,23,000/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as
under:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.3,00,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of consortium, : Rs. 15,000/-.
Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/-
love and affection.
Transportation : Rs 1,000/-
------------------
Total : Rs.3,23,000/-
========
MACA 1089/2004 4
8. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly
sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal for the loss of dependency, loss of consortium and
loss of love and affection.
9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.2,500/- and after deducting 1/3 for his
personal expenses, took Rs.20,000/- as his annual
contribution to his family and adopted a multiplier of 15
and awarded a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for loss of
dependency. As the claimant was a ‘C’ class Contractor, as
evidenced by Ext.A1,we feel that his monthly income can
reasonably estimated at Rs.3,500/-, which comes to
Rs.42,000/- per annum. In the light of the principles laid
down in Sarala Varma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR
2009 SC 3104), as there are four dependents in this case,
1/4th of the income can be deducted for his personal
expenses. Hence, balance amount of Rs.31,500/- can be
taken as his annual contribution to his family. The
multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 15 is not seriously
MACA 1089/2004 5
disputed. Thus, the compensation for the loss of
dependency would come to Rs.4,72,500/- (Rs.31,500/- x 15).
Thus, the claimants are entitled an additional compensation
of Rs.1,72,500/- on this count.
10. For loss of consortium and loss love and affection,
the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/-, which
appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the age of
the widow, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
would be reasonable for loss of consortium. Having regard
to the age of the children, we feel that a compensation of
Rs.20,000/-would be reasonable for loss of love and
affection. Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to
an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/-. As regards the
compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same
to be reasonable and therefore, are not disturbing the same.
11. In the result, the claimants are entitled to
additional compensation of Rs.1,87,500/- with interest at 9%
p.a. from the date of petition till realization with
proportionate costs. The second respondent Insurance
MACA 1089/2004 6
Company shall deposit the amount within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to
the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the
above extent.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.
mn.
