IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1536 of 2004()
1. VALIYAPURAYIL GOVINDAN, S/O. CHANTHU,
... Petitioner
2. VALIYAPURAYIL GOURI, W/O. GOVINDAN,
Vs
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :25/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M.A.C.A.No.1536 of 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February 2009
J U D G M E N T
BASANT,J
The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before
us. They are the parents of the deceased, a person aged about
27 years, who was employed abroad. The parents are shown to
be aged 50 years and 45 years respectively. The deceased was
employed as a goldsmith in Saudi Arabia. According to the
claimants, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/-.
After sustaining the injuries on 20/4/1997, the deceased
underwent treatment and succumbed to the injuries long later on
24/6/1997. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were produced.
Exts.A1 to A11 and A16 were marked before the Tribunal to
support the claim of the claimants. The 1st claimant was
examined as PW1.
2. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the
relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the
appellants/claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs.3.17
lakhs as compensation as per the details shown below:
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 2
1. Medical expenses Rs.77,000/-
(Against bills produced)
2. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-
4. Loss of dependency Rs.2,25,000/-
(Rs.5,000 x < x 12 x 15)
Total Rs.3,17,000/-
3. Accordingly the impugned award was passed directing
payment of the said amount of Rs.3.17 lakhs along with interest
@ 9% per annum.
4. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned
award. What are the reasons? Called upon to explain the
precise nature of challenge which the appellants want to mount
against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the
appellants contends first of all that no compensation has been
awarded for extra nourishment, bystanders expenditure etc.
though the deceased had continued as an in-patient for a long
time before he breathed his last. Only Rs.77,000/- against the
actual medical bills alone has been granted under the head of
medical expenses. Miscellaneous expenses in the nature of
transport to hospital, extra nourishment, bystanders expenditure
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 3
etc. have not been considered at all by the Tribunal, it is
contended. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied
that a further amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded under the
head of miscellaneous expenses in addition to the medical
expenses already awarded by the tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants secondly
contends that the tribunal has not realistically made an
assessment of the compensation payable under the head of pain
and suffering. The period of hospitalisation, nature of injuries,
the nature of procedures undergone etc. have not been taken
into reckoning and it is contended that the amount of Rs.10,000/-
awarded under the head of pain and suffering is grossly
insufficient. Considering the totality of circumstances, we are
persuaded to accept that contention. We are of the opinion that
a further amount of Rs.5,000/- can safely be awarded under the
head pain and suffering.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants then points
out that for obscure reasons, amounts have not been awarded
under the head of loss of love and affection. The deceased was
aged 27 years. His parents are shown to be aged 50 years and
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 4
45 years. In these circumstances, we agree that some amount
must have been awarded under the head loss of love and
affection which we fix at Rs.7,500/-.
7. The main plank of attack is against the compensation
for loss of dependency awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal
noted that though authentic evidence about income is not
available, it can be assumed that the deceased must have been
earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensum from his
employment abroad. Though the appellants claim to be
dissatisfied with the said finding of fact, we are satisfied that the
tribunal committed no error in reckoning Rs.5,000/- as the
reasonable monthly income which the deceased would have
earned. Considering the nature of his employment and the
future uncertainties including possibilities of his returning to
India after some period of time, that assumption does appears
to us to be reasonable. In any view of the matter, we are
satisfied that acceptance of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income to
be reckoned for the purpose of computation for the entire
remaining period is fair, reasonable and just. The multiplier is
reckoned at 15 and in any view of the matter, we are not
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 5
satisfied that such adoption of the multiplier is justified. Both
parents are now in the age group of 45 to 50 and going through
the 2nd schedule to the M.V.Act, proper multiplier is 13 and not
15. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that
the multiplicand should not have been taken at a flat rate for the
entire period of 13 years. The deceased, aged about 27 years, is
likely to get married at least within a period of 3 years.
Thereafter the contribution would have further reduced. With
the burden of a nuclear family depending on him, the
contribution which the appellants/ claimants can expect from the
deceased must certainly be reckoned at a lower rate for the
remaining period of 10 years, contends the learned counsel for
the insurance company. We find merit in that contention. We
are further satisfied that 1/3 of the total earnings can safely be
reckoned as the contribution which the parents together would
have been entitled to during the said period of ten years.
8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellants are entitled to a total further amount of
Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand only) more in addition
to the amounts already awarded by the tribunal as per the
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 6
details shown below:
1. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- more
2. Medical and miscellaneous Rs.7,500/- more
expenses
3. Loss of love and affection Rs.7,500/- more
4. Dependency Rs.65,000/- more
[(5,000 x = x 12 x 3) plus (5,000 x 1/3 x 12 x 10)]
minus 2,25,000) i.e. [(90,000 + 2,00,000)
minus 2,25,000)]
Total Rs.85,000/- more
9. Needless to say, interest shall be payable on the
entire amount from the date of the petition as already directed
by the tribunal.
10. In the result, this M.A.C.A is allowed in part to the
above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jsr
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 7
M.A.C.A.No.1536/04 8
R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
06/02/2009