Kerala High Court
The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sheeba P.R
Author: A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
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
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934
MACA.No. 754 of 2007 ( )
------------------------
(OPMV.1738/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM)
APPELLANT/THIRD RESPONDENT:
---------------------------
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
(NAMAKKAL BRANCH) MUTHOOT BUILDING, M.G.ROAD
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENT 2:
------------------------------------------------
1. SHEEBA P.R., D/O.PADMANABHAN, RESIDING
AT KANDATHIPARAMBIL, NADAKKAVU POST, UDAYAMPEROOR
KOCHI 682 307.
2. KARTHYAYANI K.K., D/O.KUTTAN, AGED 55
YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDATHIPARAMBIL NADAKKAVU, POST
UDAYAMPEROOR, KOCHI 682 307.
3. JOSHY K.G., S/O.LATE GANGADHARAN,
AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDATHIPARAMBIL
NADAKKAVU POST, UDAYAMPEROOR, KOCHI 682 307.
* 4. M.VIJAYARANI W/O.P.MOHANRAJ, RESIDING
AT 12 IST FLOOR, II CROSS, KALASIPALAYAM
NEW EXTENSION, BANGALORE. - DELETED.
BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI
BY ADV. SMT.P.C.JEEVA
* THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE
ORDER DATED 19.12.2007 ON IA 3014/2007.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SCL.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
&
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
------------------------------------------
MACA No: 754 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The Insurance Company is in appeal. They are aggrieved by the award passed by the MACT in favour of the respondents, who were the legal heirs being widow, mother and brother of one Baby, who died in a road traffic accident while working as Demi Chef in Hotel Avenue Regent. It is in evidence that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of a mini lorry, which was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The respondents claimed a total amount of Rs.14,65,000/- as compensation against which the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,88,500/- together with 7% interest per annum. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the finding by the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. They also challenge the quantum of the compensation MACA No: 754 OF 2007 ..2..
as excessive.
2. We have heard the submissions of Adv.Rajan P. Kaliyath, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Adv.Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned counsel for the respondents, who had lodged a memorandum of cross objection also.
3. Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath submitted with reference to the documents on record that the accident occurred in the middle of the road and hence, it should not have been held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant alone. There is some contribution from the part of the deceased in the matter of negligence. As regards the quantum of compensation, Sri.Rajan submitted that the dependency compensation presently fixed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.7,68,000/- is excessive. In this connection, he submitted that it came out in evidence that the widow had remarried immediately after the accident. As the widow had remarried, she could not claim to be a dependent. Only dependent was the mother of the deceased, who was aged
55. The multiplier which is applicable to the age group of mother should have been taken for calculating dependency MACA No: 754 OF 2007 ..3..
compensation.
4. Per contra, Sri.Shaji submitted that Ext.A10 certificate will show that the deceased was due for a promotion immediately. He also submitted that, at any rate, the multiplicand should have been fixed taking into account the sure prospects of the deceased in his career. The multiplicand of Rs.6,000/- adopted by the learned Tribunal is too low. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under other heads is also inadequate. Sri.Shaji placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Kalli and others v. Indra Raj Baira and others (2006 ACJ 887) and also on the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rajinder Kumar & Others v. Soma Devi and Others (2001 ACJ 307) to advance the preposition that even in a case where the widow remarries, she should be awarded compensation on the basis that at the time of the accident, she was the wife of the deceased.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Having perused the records, we are convinced that the accident occurred due to the MACA No: 754 OF 2007 ..4..
negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry insured with the appellant/Insurance Company alone. The deceased was keeping his correct side of the road. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry is a correct finding.
6. Coming to the question of compensation including the dependency compensation, we find force in the submission of Sri.Rajan that the multiplier applicable to the age group of the mother should have been adopted for determining the dependency compensation as the widow had got remarried, by the time when enquiry was conducted by the learned Tribunal. At the same time, we find force in the submission made by Sri.Shaji that the monthly income of the deceased adopted as Rs.6,000/- is too low. We adopt Rs.6,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased and redetermine the dependency compensation adopting the multiplier 11, which is applicable to the age group of the mother of the deceased. Even though very persuasive argument was raised by Sri.Rajan that as the deceased was issueless, the contribution to the family should be taken as 50% MACA No: 754 OF 2007 ..5..
only, we are not inclined to do so and we take the contribution to family as two third. When dependency compensation is redetermined, the compensation presently awarded will stand reduced by Rs.1,96,000/-.
7. Coming to the other heads of compensation, we find that the respondents have not been awarded adequate compensation under some other heads. Towards pain and suffering, the respondents are eligible to get a further amount of Rs.5,000/-. We award that amount to the respondents.
8. Towards loss of love and affection, no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and we award to the respondents a sum of Rs.15,000/- considering the cross objections.
9. Towards funeral expenses, only a sum of Rs.2,000/- is seen awarded by the learned Tribunal. We award to the respondents a sum of Rs.3,000/- more.
10. Towards loss of estate, only a sum of Rs.2,500/- is awarded by the learned Tribunal. We award to the respondents a sum of Rs.2,500/- more.
11. When the additional amounts awarded by us are MACA No: 754 OF 2007 ..6..
deducted against the sum of Rs.1,96,000/- by which dependency compensation becomes reduced by this judgment, the net result will be that the total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal will stand reduced by Rs.1,70,500/- (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand and five hundred only). This refixed amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realisation.
Sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-
//True copy// PA to Judge