Kerala High Court
Thressia, W/O Late V.P. Aype, Annamma, ... vs James, S/O Varghese And Ors. on 10 June, 2003
Author: J.B. Koshy
Bench: J.B. Koshy
JUDGMENT A. Lekshmikutty, J.
1. Against the award passed in O.M.(MV) No. 1656 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claimants filed this appeal. The appellants herein are the dependents of deceased V.I. Joseph who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.8.1992. On 16.8.1992, while the deceased V.I. Joseph was travelling as pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-7B/2644 driven by the first respondent through Chalakudy-Angamaly N.H. Road and when they reached at Karayamarambu, lorry bearing registration No. MDM-799 driven by the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle and thereby the deceased sustained serious injuries. The injured succumbed to the injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in L.F. Hospital. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles. At the time of accident, the second respondent was the owner of the motor cycle and it was having valid insurance policy with the third respondent. The 4th respondent was the driver of the lorry and 5th respondent was the owner and 6th respondent was the insurance company which insured the lorry. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants for the death of deceased V.I. Joseph. At the time of accident, the deceased was a practising lawyer, aged about 36 and having a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-. He was a bachelor and claimants are the dependents of the deceased. An amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was claimed by the as compensation. Respondents 7 and 8 are brothers, the first appellant is the mother and appellants 2 and 3 are his unmarried elder sisters. On the side of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, Ext. B1 was marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents.
2. The Tribunal after considering the evidence an award allowing the claimants to realise a compensation of Rs. 1,17,500/- with interest and respondents 1 to 3 were made jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
3. No appeal or cross objection is filed by the respondents. Now the claimants challenge the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that deceased Joseph was a practising lawyer. The monthly income of the deceased was stated as Rs. 4,000/-. To prove the income of the deceased, PW-1, the Senior Advocate of the deceased was examined. His evidence shows that the deceased Joseph was his junior Advocate. He was practising from 1991 onwards as an independent layer and he was a promising Advocate and having a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-. The court below did not accept the evidence solely on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants. It is not possible to produce any documentary evidence unless the Advocate fee is received on receipts. Presumably, there is no such practice also. But the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/-. As per Ext. A9, S.S.L.C. Book of the deceased, he was 37 years old at the time of death.
4. The evidence of PW-1 shows that the deceased was practising independently from 1991 onwards. That does not mean that he was practising only from 1991. Admittedly, the deceased was 37 years old at the time of his death. So, the income stated in the petition is not excessive. However we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-. Out of the above said income one-third is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Rs. 2,000/- is fixed as contribution to his family. It has come out in evidence that two of his elder sisters are unmarried and and they are solely depending on their deceased brother V.I. Joseph. The father also is no more. So, the petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal has used the multiplier as 15. Thus the claimants are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000/-. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the first respondent. Respondents 1 to 3 who are the driver, owner and insurer respectively are jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Further, with regard to the said finding, no appeal was preferred by the said respondents. We are not interfering with the compensation awarded in other heads.
5. Even though the claimants have claimed only Rs. 10,000/- as additional compensation for the purpose of valuation of the appeal for determining jurisdiction and court fee, amount claimed before the Tribunal was Rs. 7,50,000/-. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are awarding an additional compensation of Rs. 2,42,500/-. It has come out in evidence that the deceased was the sole bread winner of their family. In such circumstances, we are justified in awarding an additional compensation of Rs. 2,42,500/- to the petitioners. It was held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (AIR 2003 SC 674) that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation tan claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is it should be "Just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. For the reasons stated above, it is a fit case in which we can give more compensation than the jurisdictional value shown in the appeal. Thus the petitioners are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 2,42,500/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realisation from respondent 1 to 3. The third respondent is directed to deposit the amount within 2 months from today, failing which the appellants are entitled to recover the amount through court. If the amount is deposited, the appellants are at liberty to withdraw the same. The appeal is allowed.