Kerala High Court
Muhammed vs Sivan Pillai on 3 April, 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 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2012/14TH CHAITHRA 1934
MACA.No. 267 of 2012
----------------------------
OPMV.558/2007 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM
--------------
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
------------------------------
1. MUHAMMED
AGED 54 YEARS, F/O. DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
2. SUBIDHA
AGED 52 YEARS, M/O. DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
3. HARISBABU
AGED 34 YEARS, B/O. DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
4. HARSHAD
AGED 32 YEARS, B/O. DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
5. HANISH BABU
AGED 27 YEARS, B/O DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
6. HANSHEER BABU
AGED 24 YEARS, B/O. DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
7. HANSHEER BABU
AGED 24 YEARS, B/O. DECEASED HASKKER BABU.
BY ADVS.SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
SRI.R.VENUGOPAL
SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------
1. SIVAN PILLAI
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PACHU PILLAI, MADATHIL HOUSE
THENKKARA, PUNJAKODE, MANNARAKAD TALUK
PALAKKAD-678761.
MACA.No. 267 of 2012 -2-
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
P.B.NO. 43, NS TOWERS, NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND
COMBATORE ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001.
3. MOHAMMED RIYASUDHEEN
S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, VILLAPULLY HOUSE
KAIDAMANGALAM POST, MANNARKAD TALUK-678582.
4. V. MUHAMMEDALI
S/O. ABDULLA, VELLAPULLY HOUSE, KOTTOPADAM
MANNARKAD-678583.
5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
DIVISION NO. 10, FLAT NO. 101-106, NIBMC HOUSE
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.
BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF
BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
M. A. C. A No.267 of 2012
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2012
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J The legal heirs of a young man, an electrician who was aged 25 years who lost his life in a road traffic accident on account of the negligence of the driver of a pick up van which was insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company complain that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation. They contend that for calculating the dependency compensation the learned Tribunal adopted only a very low amount of ` 3,000/- per mensem as the monthly income of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was drawing ` 250/- per day and the learned Tribunal should have taken ` 7,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. They also complain that proper multiplier was not adopted by the learned M. A. C. A No.267 of 2012 -2- Tribunal for calculating the dependency compensation. They also contend that the Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation under various other heads.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company and also Sri.E.M.Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent Insurance Company which was exonerated from liability by the learned Tribunal.
3. The argument of Sri.Sreehari was that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. While the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent company was that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and there is no justification for enhancing the compensation.
4. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the bar, we are of the view that the appellants have not been awarded adequate compensation towards dependency. The accident occurred M. A. C. A No.267 of 2012 -3- on 22/01/07 and it is not in dispute that the deceased was a qualified electrician. According to us, the monthly income of ` 3,000/- adopted by the Tribunal is too low. We adopt the monthly income of the deceased as ` 3,500/-. We also find that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is low. The father of the deceased was aged 54 years and the mother was aged 49 years. The multiplier applicable to the mother was 13 and there is justification for adopting that multiplier in this case. When dependency compensation is re-calculated it will be seen that the appellants are eligible for an award of a further sum of ` 75,000/- towards dependency. We award that amount to the appellants.
5. We find that absolutely no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. As the death was not instantaneous the Tribunal should have awarded at least ` 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. We award to the appellants a sum of ` 10,000/- towards pain and suffering.
6. We are of the view that there is inadequacy in the M. A. C. A No.267 of 2012 -4- compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of love and affection. We award to the appellants ` 5,000/- more towards loss of love and affection.
7. The compensation awarded under other heads is reasonable and this means that in all the appellants are awarded a total amount of ` 90,000/- over and above what is awarded by the learned Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the learned Tribunal.
8. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
Sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M. A. C. A No.267 of 2012 -5-