Kerala High Court
Karuppan (Died) vs *1. R.K.Ramakrishnan on 30 March, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940
MACA.No. 782 of 2013
OP(MV).1099/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :
1 KARUPPAN (DIED),
S/O.KOCHU, AGED 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PALAPARAMBU HOUSE,
NEMMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 KUMARAN @ BALASUBRAMANIAN,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KARUPPANN,
RESIDING AT PALAPARAMBU HOUSE,
NEMMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3 LATHA @ PUSHPALATHA,
AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.MURUKESH,
RESIDING AT PALAPARAMBU HOUSE,
NEMMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
4 SANTOSHKUMAR,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KARUPPANN,
RESIDING AT PALAPARAMBU HOUSE,
NEMMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
5 SANTHI,
W/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PALAPARAMBU HOUSE,
NEMMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.BABY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
*1. R.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O.KARUPPA GOUNDER,AGED 52 YEARS,
27/1, RAMAPURAM, PUDUR, MAIN ROAD NAMAKAL,
NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-600001.
(R.C.OWNER OF ASHOK LEYLAND LORRY NO.TN27/X-0169). (DELETED)
*2. S.SELVARAJ,
S/O.SRINIVASA UDAIYAR, AGED 54 YEARS,
1/75-B, EAST STREET, MAHADEVI P.O.,
MUSIRI TALUK, TRICHI, TAMIL NADU-680001.
(DRIVER OF ASHOK LEYLAND LORRY NO.TN-27/X-0169) (DELETED)
MACA.No. 782 of 2013
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
VIGNESWARA BUILDING, 2/7, PUDUKOTTAI ROAD, NEAR
OVERBRIDGE, THIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMILNADU-68001. (INSURER OF
ASHOK LEYLAND LORRY NO.TN 27/X-0169).
* RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE
RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 30.3.2015 IN
I.A.1192/2015 IN MACA.782/2013.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.7.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
1.8.2018
P.D. RAJAN, J.
------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013
----------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (M.V.) No.1099 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad by the dependants of the deceased Devadasan. On 18.04.2005 at 9.30 p.m., the deceased met with an accident and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only) with 7.5% interest and cost to the dependants of the deceased. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this appeal.
2. Claimants case in the lower court was that on 18.04.2005 at 9.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle KL-9/P-2657 from Vadakkencherry to Nemmara and when he reached near Pankaja Rice Mill, Mudappallur, a lorry TN-27/X-0169 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle, as a result he sustained serious injuries in the accident. Immediately he was removed to hospital, but while undergoing M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013 2 treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The accident was not disputed by the respondents in the lower court. The driver and owner of the lorry were ex parte. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. Claimants examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.A1 to A17 as their documentary evidence. Respondents did not adduce any evidence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was a dance teacher and was getting an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal took only Rs.3,000/- while awarding dependency compensation, which is very low. Moreover, future prospects was also not considered by the Tribunal.
5. Apex Court in National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)] held as follows:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santhosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013 3 contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013 4 loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
6. In fatal accident case, the measure of damage is towards the pecuniary losses, which is to be suffered by the dependents as a result of the death. But the assessment of damages to the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables. The life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents are the major factors. Secondly, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining period of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period is also relevant. The chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better job and earned more income also have to be considered by the Tribunal.
7. The respondents have no dispute with regard M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013 5 to the occupation of the deceased. Exts.A1 to A4 were produced in the lower court to prove the occupation and income. Ext.A1 is the certificate issued from G.A.L.P.S, Pazhathara to the effect that the deceased was given an amount of Rs.5,000/- for imparting training in dance programme for 20 days, Ext.A2 is the certificate issued from AMS Mannadiar Memorial Teacher Training Institute, to the effect that the deceased was given an amount of Rs.8,000/-, Ext.A3 is the certitifate issued from Devaki Memorial Senior Basic School to the effect that he was given an amount fo Rs.8,000/- from January 2005 to March 2005 and Ext.A4 is the certificate issued from MMMSB School , Koduvayur to the effect that he was given an amount fo Rs.2,000/- per month.
8. Apex Court in Dixit Kumar and Ors. Vs. Om Prskash Goel [2017 ACJ 2057] held that, in the absence of any contra evidence, the income stated by the claimant has to be considered. In the absence of any contra evidnece, it is just and reasonable to take Rs.4,500/- as his monthly income. Along with that, 40% M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013 6 (4500x40%) has to be added and the monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/- (4500+1800). Hence the appellants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.12,09,600/- (6300x12x16) towards Loss of dependency. Since the deceased was a bachelor, half of the amount has to be deducted and then the amount comes to Rs.6,04,800/-. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- towards Loss of dependency. The balance is Rs.3,16,800/-.
9. In view of National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)], reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. In this case, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards Loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards Funeral expenses. Hence, in addition to that, the following additional amounts are awarded under different heads as follows; Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-, Funeral expenses Rs.13,000/-, Pain and suffering M.A.C.A. No.782 of 2013 7 Rs.15,000/- and Damages to clothing Rs.2,000/-. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.3,56,800/- (Rupees Three Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred only). Since the deceased was a bachelor, no need to award Loss of consortium. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,56,800/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred only) with 9% interest and proportionate cost in addition to Rs.2,95,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only) awarded by the learned Tribunal. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.
M.A.C.A is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.D.RAJAN,
JUDGE
/True Copy/
NS P.A. To Judge