High Court Kerala High Court

V.V.Ushakumari vs M.Hyderali on 26 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
V.V.Ushakumari vs M.Hyderali on 26 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 163 of 2007()


1. V.V.USHAKUMARI, W/O LATE MOHANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ANOOP MOHAN, S/O LATE MOHANAN,
3. ASWATHI MOHAN, D/O LATE MOHANAN,

                        Vs



1. M.HYDERALI, S./O SAINUDEEN HAJI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KARUPPAYIL NISSAM,S/O VEERAN,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

4. C.M.ANTONY, S/O C.A.MATHEW,

5. MOHANA SUNDARAM, S/O KANDAYYA,

6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

7. KALLIANI RAMAN, W/O RAMAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.M.ANDREWS

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

 Dated :26/07/2010

 O R D E R
               A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
            ------------------------------------------------------
                          M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007
            ------------------------------------------------------

                          Dated: JULY 26, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)120/2005 on the file of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. They are the wife,

children and mother of one deceased Mohanan who died in a motor

accident. On February 10, 1998 while the deceased was travelling in

a bus bearing Regn.No.KLL-21 from Manjeri to Nilambur and reached

at Mampad at about 9.40 a.m. the bus collided head on with a lorry

bearing Regn.No.TN-43/5373. The deceased sustained serious injuries

and he died on the spot. Alleging negligence against the 2nd

respondent, driver of the bus, and the 5th respondent, driver of the

lorry, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act claiming a compensation of Rs.9,11,500/-.

2. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the bus,did not

contest the case. Respondents 3 and 6 are the same Insurance

Company. They filed a joint written statement admitting the policy of

the respective vehicles. Respondents 4 and 5, owner and driver of the

lorry involved in the accident, filed a joint written statement

admitting the accident, but attributing negligence to the 2nd

respondent, driver of the bus.

M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007 2

3. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the

side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by

the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the

Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of 2nd

respondent, the driver of the offending bus, and awarded a total

compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimants have

now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Heard counsel for the appellants/claimants and the Insurance

Company.

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

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd

respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only

question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is

entitled to any enhanced compensation.

6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.

The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under:

transport to hospital              Rs.2,500/-

pain and suffering                    7,500/-

loss of dependency                 6,00,000/-

loss of consortium                    7,500/-

funeral expenses                      2,500/-

M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007              3

7. The Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the

compensation awarded for the loss of dependency, for loss of

consortium and for loss of love and affection. The deceased was aged

43 at the time of the accident as proved by Ext.A4 copy of the

relevant page of the SSLC book. The Tribunal took the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- and deducting 1/3rd for his

personal expenses, took Rs.2000/- as his monthly contribution to his

family. A multiplier of 15 was adopted and a compensation of

Rs.5,40,000/- and another compensation of Rs.60,000/- was awarded

for the loss of dependency (total Rs.6 lakhs). It is seen from Ext.A9

certificate issued by the Manager of Nilambur Branch of the Indian

Bank that the deceased was working there and was earning a salary of

Rs.7075/- p.m. Since the deceased was a bank employee, we feel

that the salary certificate Ext.A9 can be accepted and his monthly

income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.7075/-. After deducting 1/3rd

for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.4717/- can be

taken as his monthly contribution to his family. The multiplier

adopted as 15 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the

loss of dependency the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.8,49,060/- (4717x12x15). Thus on this count the claimant is

entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,49,060/-.

8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7500/- for loss of consortium and

M.A.C.A. 163 of 2007 4

for loss of love and affection which appears to be quite inadequate.

Taking into consideration the age of claimants 1 to 3, the wife and

children of the deceased, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/-

for loss of consortium and a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for loss of

love and affection would be reasonable. Thus on this count the

claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of

Rs.17,500/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other

heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not

disturbing the same.

9. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation

of Rs.2,66,560/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd

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 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
mt/-