Kerala High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Bai @ Meena Mohan Babu on 5 June, 2012
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934
MACA.No. 1648 of 2007 ( )
----------------------------------------
OPMV.1649/2000 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.1649/2000:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PALARIVATOORM BRANCH, MYDHILY MANDIRAM, JANATHA,
COCHIN- 682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.3235, OMANA BUILDINGS,
JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-682035.
BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OPMV NO.1649/2000:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MEENA BAI @ MEENA MOHAN BABU, AGED 40,
(HOUSE WIFE), W/O LATE MOHANA BABU @ MOHAN BABU,
KEECHERIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O.
COCHIN-25.
2. ANISH K.MOHAN (MINOR), AGED 10,
S/O LATE MOHANA BABU @ MOHAN BABU (STUDENT),
KEECHERIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O.
COCHIN-25, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER
1ST PETITIONER, MEENA BAI @ MEENA MOHAN BABU
3. AKHIL K.MOHAN (MINOR), AGED 7,
S/O LATE MOHANA BABU @ MOHAN BABU (STUDENT),
KEECHERIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O.
COCHIN-25, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER
1ST PETITIONER, MEENA BAI @ MEENA MOHAN BABU
4. M.K.ZIYAD, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED,
MULAKKAMPILLY HOUSE, NEAR RATION SHOP (ARD 41),
PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30.
5. RAFEEQUE U.K., S/O.KHADER,
ULLAMPILLIL HOUSE, NEAR OLD POLICE STATION OFFICE,
KAKKANAD.
R4 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI
BY ADV. SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05-06-2012, ALONG WITH MACA. 600/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MG
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MACA. Nos. 1648 of 2007 & 600 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
MACA No. 1648 of 2007 is preferred by the Insurance Company which contends that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is excessive. MACA No. 600 of 2008 is preferred by the claimants who contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The accident resulted in the death of one Mohan Babu who was an LIC agent. Under the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded `18,45,000/- in favour of the claimants as against their claim for a total amount `22 lakhs. The ground mainly urged in MACA No. 1648 of 2007 is regarding the excessiveness of the dependency compensation which is fixed as `18 lakhs. It is urged that the Tribunal went wrong in relying on Exts. A7, A9 and A10 and fixing the monthly income of the deceased to be `15,000/- per mensem. It is MACA.1648/07 & 600/8 -2- urged that the Tribunal did not take into account the establishment charges which were being incurred by the deceased Mohan Babu for maintaining his office. It is also urged that the Tribunal did not take into account the income-tax which was payable from out of the income revealed from Exts. A7, A9 and A10. It is also urged that as the appellant was an LIC agent and his income was fluctuating the Tribunal was not justified in adopting a uniform multiplicand for determining dependency compensation.
2. In MACA. 600/08 the grounds raised is that the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation under any of the grounds.
3. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Lal George, learned counsel for the appellant in MACA. No. 1648 of 2007 and Smt. Rajani K.N. learned counsel for the appellant in MACA. No. 600/08. Both the learned counsel addressed MACA.1648/07 & 600/8 -3- submissions based on the grounds raised in the respective appeal memorandum. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award.
4. We find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Lal George that the Tribunal erred in adopting the monthly income of `15,000/- for determining the dependency compensation payable to the claimants. Smt. Rajani's submission in the above regard was that the entire establishment charges used to be met by the Divisional Manager as the deceased Mohan Babu was his club member. No evidence is available to substantiate the above argument of Smt. Rajani incurring of establishment charges by the Divisional Manager. Even if the above argument is accepted the income tax which was payable by late Mohan Babu ought to have been deducted. So also it is easy to foresee that his income will be on decline as time passes and the MACA.1648/07 & 600/8 -4- field become more competitive we feel that interests of justice will be satisfied if we take a uniform multiplicand of `1,08,000/- adopting the monthly income as `9000/-. The learned Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15. But on going by the decision in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010(2) KLT 802 SC the correct multiplier to be adopted was 14. When the dependency compensation is reworked adopting the revised multiplicand and multiplier we see that the total dependency compensation to which the claimants will become eligible is only `10,08,000/-.
5. But we are in agreement with Smt. Rajani that the claimants were not awarded adequate compensation under some of the heads. We find that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `5000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. We reckon that amount as compensation towards transportation expenses. We award `5000/- separately towards funeral expenses. We find that MACA.1648/07 & 600/8 -5- towards loss of consortium the first claimant who was aged only 40 at the time of death of her husband has been awarded only `10,000/-. We award to her `15000/- more towards loss of consortium. We find that both the children of the deceased were minors and the Tribunal awarded them only `10,000/-. We award `10,000/- to each of them (total `20,000/-) towards compensation for loss of love and affection. Thus the total compensation to which the claimants become eligible will stand revised as `8,32,000/-. This amount will carry interest at 7.5% as specified by the Tribunal in its award.
Both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The parties will suffer their respective costs.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) ksv/-