IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 933 of 2005()
1. SANTHAKUMARI, PRASANTH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. P.K.LAKSHMANAN PILLAI, PRASANTH HOUSE,
3. PRIYA.P.L. D/O.P.K.LAKSHMANAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. JAYACHANDRAN.R. KUNAMKAROTE HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. M/S.BHARATHIYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :10/12/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
M.A.C.A.No. 933 of 2005
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1718 of
2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kottayam. They are the parents and sister of deceased
Jayasree who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they
challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated
February 23, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.55,000/-
for the loss caused to them on account of the death of the
deceased in that accident.
2. The accident happened while the deceased was
travelling in a car bearing registration YN 01 K 6248 driven
by the 1st respondent. When they reached near
Kuzhalmannam, Palakkad the 1st respondent driver
suddenly applied the brake, as a result of which the car
overturned. Deceased Jayasree sustained serious injuries
and she succumbed to the injuries sustained on June 27,
MACA 933/2005 2
1999 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Alleging
negligence against the 1st respondent, the driver of the
offending car, the claimants filed the O.P. before the
Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming a compensation of Rs.7,55,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the
offending car, remained absent and were set ex parte by the
Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending car,
filed a written statement, admitting the policy. Exts. A1 to
A13 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence
was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal, on an
appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of
Rs. 55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till realization and a cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The claimants have come up in appeal, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and
the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the
MACA 933/2005 3
Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence
on the part of the 1st respondent, driver of the offending
car, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only
question, which arises for consideration, is whether the
claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation ?
6. The Tribunal awarded a minimum compensation of
Rs.50,000/- for loss of dependency and a compensation of
Rs..5,000/- for loss of love and affection.
7. The deceased was aged 26 at the time of the
accident. She was a graduate in Horticulture. According to
the claimants, she was employed in Canara Bank as an
Agricultural Officer. Ext.A6 is the call letter for interview by
the Banking Service Recruitment Board. The parents were
aged 65 and 53 respectively at the time of the accident. The
Tribunal observed that there were no actual dependents of
the deceased and awarded a minimum compensation of
Rs.55,000/-. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the
claimants.
8. The 3rd claimant is unmarried. There is no evidence
MACA 933/2005 4
to show that except the 3rd claimant, claimants 1 and 2 have
any other children. Therefore, they are the legal heirs as
well as dependents of the deceased and they are entitled to
a compensation on account of the death of deceased
Jayasree in the accident. Therefore, the finding of the
Tribunal that the claimants are only entitled to a minimum
compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of dependency
cannot be sustained.
9. The next question for consideration what is the
enhanced compensation the claimants are entitled to. As
the deceased was a graduate in Horticulture and also
employed in Canara Bank as Agricultural Officer, we feel
that her monthly income can reasonably be fixed at
Rs.2,500/-, which comes to Rs.30,000/-. After deducting 1/3
for her personal expenses, balance amount of Rs.20,000/-
can be taken as her annual contribution to her family. As
the parents were aged 65 and 53 respectively, we feel that
multiplier of 6 would be reasonable in this case. Thus, for
the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a
MACA 933/2005 5
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, the claimants are
entitled an additional compensation of Rs.70,000/- on this
count.
10. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection. Taking into
consideration the age of the deceased and the age of the
claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would
be reasonable on this count.
11. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for
pain and suffering, for funeral expenses and for medical
expenses. The deceased died about 15 days after the
incident. Therefore, we feel that a compensation of
Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the deceased,
Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for medical
expenses would be reasonable.
12. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to
an additional compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest
9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and
proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent Insurance
MACA 933/2005 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. Regarding the apportionment of the
compensation amount and disbursement of the same, the
direction of the Tribunal will stand. 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.
mn.