IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1788 of 2006()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LEELA MADHAVAN, W/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. PRASANTH, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
3. JAYAKUMAR, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
4. SREEKANTH, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.T.S.RAJAN
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.1788 of 2006
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
Third respondent-Insurance Company, in O.P.(MV) No.861 of 2003 of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) has come
up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. Heard counsel for appellant and respondents.
3. Point for consideration is whether compensation awarded is
excessive requiring interference by this Court.
4. Husband of the first respondent, and father of respondents 2 to 4,
a retired District Educational Officer suffered fatal injuries in a motor accident
on 3.1.1997. He was hit by the tempo van driven by the first respondent and
owned by the second respondent in the Original Petition and which was insured
with the appellant (third respondent in the Original Petition). Tribunal found that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo van.
That finding is not under challenge. Learned counsel for the appellant
contended that compensation awarded is excessive.
MACA No.1788/2006
2
5. It is not disputed that the deceased was a retired District
Educational Officer. Respondents in this appeal (claimants) produced Ext.A11,
pension payment order to show that the deceased was drawing Rs.5,043/- per
month by way of pension. It is their further case that the deceased was
employed as Instructor in Srilakshmi Education Centre and earning Rs.3,000/-
per month. Ext.A10 was produced in proof of the same. Tribunal accepted
Exts.A10 and A11 and found that total income of the deceased per month was
Rs.8,043/- and after deducting one third for personal expenses, contribution to
the family was fixed at Rs.5,600/- per month. Taking ‘8’ as the multiplier
Rs.5,37,600/- was awarded as compensation for loss of dependency and
contribution. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses,
Rs.3,000/- for transportation charges, Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium to the
first respondent (widow) and Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection and all
other non-pecuniary losses. Thus, total amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal came to Rs.6,15,600/-.
6. It is true that as seen from Ext.A11, deceased was drawing monthly
pension of Rs.5,043/-. At the same time, Tribunal did not take into account the
fact that after the death of the deceased, half of the amount of pension will be
paid to the first respondent by way of family pension. Therefore, Rs.2,500/-
should have been deducted from the sum of Rs.5,043/- covered by Ext.A11. If
that be so, accepting Ext.A10 also the total income of the deceased for the
purpose of assessment of compensation should be taken as Rs.5,043/- per
MACA No.1788/2006
3
month. However, taking into account the educational qualification and
experience of the deceased and the possible increase in the future income as
Instructor, we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- for the
purpose of assessment of compensation. Deducting one third for his personal
expenses, loss of contribution and dependency to the respondents is
Rs.4,000/- per month. Tribunal has rightly taken 8 as the multiplier considering
the age of the first respondent. Thus, compensation payable for loss of
contribution and dependency comes to Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.4,000 x 2×8) as
against Rs.5,37,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. So far as compensation for loss of consortium to the first
respondent is concerned, it is seen that Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the
Tribunal. Award must be comparable with awards in similar cases. Deceased
was aged 57 years at the time of accident. When the application for
compensation was filed in the Tribunal in the year 2003, first respondent was
aged 58 years. Taking these aspects and also the normal life span, we are
inclined to think that only Rs.10,000/- should have been awarded for loss of
consortium. Though it is contended by learned counsel for appellant that
compensation awarded on other counts are also excessive, we are not inclined
to accept that contention considering the total amount to which the respondents
are now found entitled and all other relevant and attending circumstances.
Thus, the excess amount awarded in favour of respondents is Rs.1,73,600/-. On
deducting that amount from the sum of Rs.6,15,600/- awarded by the Tribunal,
MACA No.1788/2006
4
the compensation to which the respondents are entitled comes to Rs.4,42,000/-.
That amount will carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part and the compensation payable
to the respondents 1 to 4 is modified as Rs.4,42,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and
fortytwo thousand only). That amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by
the Tribunal. All other directions issued by the Tribunal will remain in force.
J.B.KOSHY,
JUDGE.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks