Soniaymma Mathew vs Pandi Raja @ Raju on 29 March, 2017

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Soniaymma Mathew vs Pandi Raja @ Raju on 29 March, 2017

1.The loss of life compensated by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs.28,95,054/-, as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/-, is stated as a meagre amount and hence the challenge in this appeal.

2.The appellants were the claimants before the Tribunal and the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KL 13/872 along the Kollam-Alappuzha highway on 7.7.2011. At about 3.00 pm, when he reached the place of occurrence, a lorry bearing No.TN.72 AE/4421 driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent came in the same direction and knocked him down causing fatal injuries leading to his death occurred on the same day. This was MACA.822/17 2 sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking a total sum of Rs.20,50,000/- under different heads.

3.It was contended by the claimants that the deceased was working as 'Peon' on a monthly salary of Rs.16,221/- and he had crossed the age of 40 years. Respondents 1 & 2 did not choose to contest the matter and hence they were set ex parte. A written statement was filed by the 3rd respondent/Insurer admitting the policy, but disputing the negligence and quantum.

4.No oral evidence was adduced from either side. The only evidence before the Tribunal consists of Exts.A1 to A9. Based on the available materials, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and proceeded to work out the compensation.

MACA.822/17 3

5.Though nobody was examined from the part of the claimants, the Tribunal virtually accepted the entire figures proposed by the claimants with regard to the age, income and such other aspects. The total salary drawn as Rs.16,221/- per month was accepted by the Tribunal and following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89 [SC]), 30% was added towards future prospects. 1/4th of the said amount was deducted towards the personal expenses and the extent of monthly contribution to the family was fixed as Rs.12,166/-. Finding the admitted fact that the deceased had crossed the age of 40 years, the appropriate multiplier was taken as '`14' and the 'loss of dependency' was fixed at Rs.26,57,054/-.

6.The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as given below : MACA.822/17 4

Head Amount claimed (in Amount awarded (in Rs.) Rs.) Transportation 2000 3000 Funeral expenses 10000 25000 Extra nourishment 3000 --


Love and affection                   20000              1,00,000

Loss of estate                       15000                  ---

Bystanders expense                     ----                ----

Medical Bills                           ---                ----

Damage to clothes                     1000                 ----

Pain & sufferings                    30000               10000

Loss of dependency                  1950000             2657054

Loss of consortium                   20000               100000

Ambulance charge                      5000                  ---

Misc. expenses                       10000                  ---

Total (limited to Rs.2050000)                           2895054

7.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance of the claimants are two-

fold. The first one is that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier '15', instead of '14'. Reliance is sought to be placed on paragraph 16 of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma ((2015) 9 SCC 150), which is extracted below :

MACA.822/17 5

"Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident, ie., 14.12.2006 the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of '14' which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.16,82,310/-."

On going through the said verdict, this Court is of the view that the said decision does not come to the rescue of the appellants/petitioners as to any declaration of law to the effect that, even if a person has crossed the age of 25, 30, 35, 40 as the case may be, the appropriate multiplier has to be reckoned as applicable upto reaching that age. The admitted fact remains that the deceased has crossed the age of 40 years and he was running on 41 years. The higher multiplier '15' is applicable only upto the stage of reaching 40 years. Since the deceased had crossed the age of 40, the appropriate multiplier can only be '14' and not '15'. The course pursued by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

MACA.822/17 6

8.The other contention pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, altogether six claimants were there and as such, the compensation for loss of 'love and affection' awarded by the Tribunal fixing the same as Rs.1,00,000/- requires modification/enhancement. This Court does not find any pith or substance in the said submission by virtue of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89). The Award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of the law, keeping the proper track. The legal position has been considered, analyzed and appreciated by this Court as well, as per the verdict passed in Jyni & Others v. Raphel P.T & Another (2016 (2) KHC 870) - to which one of us [PRRM(J)] was also a member; holding that the maximum amount payable under the head 'loss of love & affection' is of Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court finds that the Award passed by the Tribunal granting the total sum of MACA.822/17 7 Rs.26,57,054/- as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/- is of course a 'Just' Award in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Judge Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/31.3 //True copy// P.S to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court