Kerala High Court
Shaini vs Rajendran
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: P.N.Ravindran, A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938
MACA.No. 805 of 2014 ()
------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1111/2009 of M.A.C.T., PALAKKAD DATED 29-09-
2012
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
-----------------------
1. SHAINI
W/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, ARUKKODE VEEDU, PANAYOOR,
POLPULLY,PALAKKAD
2. KUNJILAKSHMI
W/O.LATE RAMANKUTTY, VARIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, KALLEAKKADU,
PALAKKAD
BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. RAJENDRAN
S/O.VEERAPPAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, THIRUNALLAY,PALAYAM POST,
PALAKKAD
2. ARAVINDAKSHAN
S/O.KOCHAN, CHALLAKKADU VEEDU, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
3RD FLOOR, KANNONS EAST FORT COMPLEX,FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD
4. RAMANKUTTY
S/O.K.M.KITTU,VARAMPALLAM VEEDU,KALLEKKADU ,PALAKKAD
5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 11/82 , IIIRD FLOOR, MALABAR FORT
OFF G B ROAD, PALAKKAD
R1 BY ADV. SHRI K.P. BALAGOPAL
R3 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNJOSEPH VETTIKKAD(B/O,NO MEMO)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N. Ravindran &
A. Muhamed Mustaque, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
M.A.C.A.No. 805 of 2014
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th July, 2016
JUDGMENT
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The appellants are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV) No.1111 of 2009. The first appellant is the widow of deceased Radhakrishnan who died in a motor accident which took place on 16.7.2009. The second appellant is the mother. They have filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation on account of the death of Radhakrishnan. The deceased Radhakrishnan was riding a motor cycle and met with an accident on 16.7.2009. The vehicle which the deceased was riding was hit by a truck driven by the second respondent. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
2. The deceased was claimed to be a mason and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under various heads.
3. The tribunal after adverting to the fact that there was no proof as to income of the deceased, fixed a notional income at Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,39,000/-. The MACA 805/2014 2 tribunal though found that there was a valid policy, since the first respondent failed to produce the fitness certificate of the vehicle, took an adverse inference against him and found that there was breach of the policy conditions and ordered to pay and recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri K.P. Balagopal, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the third respondent.
5. The deceased at the time of accident, was aged 36 years, his date of birth being 25.5.1973. The accident took place on 16.7.2009. Therefore, it can be seen that the deceased has attained the age of 36 years. The multiplier thus ought to have been reckoned is 15 going, by the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation {(2009) 6 SCC 121}. The tribunal however adopted the multiplier of 16. We feel that the monthly income taken by the tribunal at Rs.4,000/- is too low. Having regard to the ground realities and wages prevailing at that time, the tribunal ought to have taken the sum of Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Further, the tribunal had not taken into account future prospects. MACA 805/2014 3 Thus, we feel that under the head loss of dependency, the total compensation to be awarded is Rs.8,10,000/-(Rs.4500 + 2250 x 12 x 15 x 2/3). After deducting the compensation already awarded by the tribunal under this head, the appellants will be entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,98,000/-.
6. We feel that the compensation awarded under the head funeral expenses is too low. Taking the cue from the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3)KLT 89), we feel that an amount of Rs.25,000/- should be awarded for funeral expenses. Thus, after deducting the amount already awarded, the appellants would be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.23,000/- under the head funeral expenses. We also feel that the appellants ought to have been awarded at least the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for loss of love and affection in the place of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. Likewise, the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium also has to be varied. The appellants would be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.90,000/- under the head loss of consortium in addition to the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The appellants would be entitled to get the sum of MACA 805/2014 4 Rs.10,000/- under the head compensation for pain and suffering.
We accordingly allow the appeal. The appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.4,61,000/- (Rs.2,98,000/- + Rs.23,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.90,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). The said amount will carry interest at 9% and the third respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within two months from today and thereafter the insurer is free to recover the amount paid to the appellants, from the first respondent. Out of the said deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be released to the appellants and the balance amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the first appellant for a period of five years with a provision to draw quarterly interest. The appellants shall pay court fee for the enhanced amount of compensation, before the tribunal. The parties shall suffer their costs in this court.
(P.N. Ravindran, Judge) (A. Muhamed Mustaque, Judge) kav/