IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 23 of 2006()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANANTHAMATHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. U.K. HUSSAIN, S/O. KUNHIRAYIN,
3. SHAMSUDDIN, S/O. MOHAMMED,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
================================
M.A.C.A.No.23 of 2006 - A
===============================
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY, J.
Son of the 1st respondent at the age of 32 sustained fatal
injury in a motor accident on 15.5.2002. He was taken to the
Hospital and despite life saving medicines were given, he
succumbed to the injury. Tribunal found that accident occurred
due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent. The appellant
insurance company has admitted the coverage of insurance of the
offending vehicle. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of
compensation. 2nd respondent driver was charge sheeted by the
police after police enquiry. Tribunal after considering Ext.A1 FIR,
Ext.A2 charge sheet, Ext.A6 scene mahazar found that the 2nd
respondent driver of the lorry insured by the appellant is
negligent and responsible for the accident. The total amount
awarded is Rs.3,03,000/-. It is the contention of the appellant
that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was on the high side.
The claimant was aged 65 years. Going by the 2nd schedule, only
5 can be taken as multiplier. But the deceased was aged 32
M.A.C.A.No.23 of 2006 – A 2
years at the time of accident. If that age is taken into account,
17 is the multiplier. But, here the deceased was unmarried.
Since father of the deceased was no more, he was looking after
his mother. The claimant is the mother who is fully depending on
the deceased. She is still living even after six and half years of
accident. Considering the age of the claimant and deceased, we
are of the opinion that only 7 can be taken as multiplier instead
of 17. Only Rs.1,200/- is taken as the monthly income. He was
an autorikshaw driver. The accident occurred in the year 2002.
According to the claimants his income was more than Rs.4,000/-.
An autorikshaw driver may normally earn at least Rs.150/- per
day and he may get work for about 25 – 26 days in a month. The
rate of monthly income hence ought to have been fixed at least
as Rs.3,000/- if Rs.4,000/- as monthly income claimed is not
accepted and after deducting one third Rs.2,000/- can be taken
as monthly loss of dependency. It is submitted on behalf of the
claimants that they did not file any appeal only because they
were not aggrieved by the total amount awarded by the Tribunal.
If Rs.2,000/- is taken as monthly loss of dependency,
compensation payable will be Rs.1,68,000/- (2000 X 12 X 7).
M.A.C.A.No.23 of 2006 – A 3
Tribunal has granted R.1,63,000/- for loss of dependency.
Therefore total amount awarded for loss of dependency is not
high and requires no interference at the instance of the insurance
company. But we are of the opinion that amount granted for
pain and suffering (Rs.35,000/-), loss of estate (Rs. 50,000/-)
and loss of expectation of life (Rs.50,000/-) are on the high side.
We are of the opinion that inclusive of compensation for pain and
suffering, loss of estate, transportation expenses, for taking the
injured to Hospital and taking the body in ambulance to house,
funeral expenses, medical expenses along with compensation for
loss of dependency on account of the death of a 32 year old
motor accident victim can only be Rs.2,50,000/- instead of
rs.3,03,000/- as the aged mother is the only claimant.
Therefore, the total amount payable is Rs.2,50,000/- with
interest as awarded from the date of application till deposit, after
deducting the amount already paid.
The appeal is allowed as above.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
bkn/-