IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
MACA NO. 2137 OF 2013
OP(MV)No.615/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MUMTHAJ, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR, ALAMPADY,
KOZHINJAMPARA POST, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 JAHIR HUSSAIN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR,
ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3 JANNATHUL FIRDOUSE, AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR, ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST,
VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
4 RAVIATHULBASARIYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR,
ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
5 PHATHIMABEEVI @ FATHIMABEEVI, AGED 78 YEARS
W/O LATE MOHAMMED, ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST,
VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENTS/SUPPLEMENTAL 4TH RESPONDENT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMANATHAN, 184, ANNANAGAR HOUSING UNIT,
VEERAKERALAM, COIMBATORE- 641 001.
MACA 2137 of 2013 2
2 SHANMUGHAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O KANTHASWAMI CHETTIYAR,
PALLILTHERUVU, KOZHINJAMPARA POST, PALAKKAD-678 101.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DO 11.16, STATE BANK ROAD, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641 001.
R3 BY ADVS.
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26.08.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 2137 of 2013 3
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are the claimants in OP(MV) No.615 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. They are disputing the quantum of compensation awarded on the death of Sri.Abdul Sathar, who met with a road traffic accident on 02.11.2008 and succumbed to the injuries. The appellants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.
2. On 02.11.2008, at 5.30 p.m. while Sri.Abdul Sathar was riding a motorcycle, TN-38/M-5978 vehicle driven by the 2nd respondent dashed against his motorcycle and he fell down and sustained serious injuries. On the next day, he succumbed to the injuries. He was a Teacher working on deputation as BRC Trainer of Block Resource Centre, Chittur, earning monthly income of Rs.16,845/- per month. The appellants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,50,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.6,96,500/-, which is under challenge.
3. The 3rd respondent in this appeal is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. The accident, death of Sri.Abdul Sathar and the insurance policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. MACA 2137 of 2013 4
4. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.
5. Admittedly, the deceased Abdul Sathar was a School Teacher working on deputation as BRC Trainer in Block Resource Centre and he was drawing monthly income of Rs.16,845/-. Ext.A19 his last Pay Certificate was proved through PW1. So there is no dispute regarding his monthly income. He was 54 years old at the time of death as his date of birth was 22.07.1954. The Tribunal applied split multiplier as there was only one year and 5 months for him to retire from service. So for that period, his monthly income was taken as Rs.16,845/- and for the remaining 9 years and 7 months, a notional income of Rs.4,500/- was fixed. The Apex Court in various decisions deprecated the practice of applying split multiplier. In Valli vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in [2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1190 (SC)] the Apex Court affirmed the need of applying the multiplier as laid down in various decisions including Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) and National Insurance Company MACA 2137 of 2013 5 Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. So the Tribunal went wrong in applying split multiplier while computing dependency compensation.
6. Admittedly, his monthly income was Rs.16,845/-. Since he was aged only 54, going by Pranay Sethi's case cited (Supra), he was entitled for 15% addition towards future prospects. So his income could be assessed as Rs.19,372/- per month. So, his annual income would have been Rs.2,32,464/-. When 10% is deducted towards Income Tax, it would become Rs.2,09,218/-. Since he was having five dependents ¼ has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So the balance income would have been Rs.1,56,914/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 11, the compensation for loss of dependency would have been assessed as Rs.17,26,023/-. On deducting Rs.6,61,350/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency, the balance towards enhanced compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs.10,64,673/-.
7. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So, as MACA 2137 of 2013 6 enhanced compensation for funeral expenses, they will get Rs.12,000/-.
8. Towards loss of estate Rs.5,000/- only was awarded by the Tribunal, instead of Rs.15,000/-. So under that head, the appellants will get Rs.10,000/- more as enhanced compensation. Towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- in total. As the appellants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased, they are eligible to get compensation for loss of consortium spousal, filial and parental. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited (Supra), they will get Rs.44,000/- each including 10% hike for the delay in three years. So, they are eligible to get total amount of Rs.2,20,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium'. After deducting Rs.25,000/- already awarded, they will get Rs.1,95,000/- as enhanced compensation towards loss of consortium.
Head of claim Amount Amount Difference to be
awarded by awarded in drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Loss of Rs.6,61,350/- Rs.17,26,023/- Rs.10,64,673 /-
MACA 2137 of 2013 7
dependency
Funeral Rs.3,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.12,000/-
expenses
Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Loss of Rs.25,000/- Rs.2,20,000/- Rs.1,95,000/-
consortium &
loss of love
and affection
Total Rs.12,81,673/-
Enhanced compensation is Rs.12,81,673/-
9. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.12,81,673/- (10,64,673 + 12,000 + 10,000 + 1,95,000) (Rupees Twelve Lakh Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Three only).
10. The respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account of the appellants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding the period of 94 days of delay in filing the appeal) in the proportion as fixed by the Tribunal (60:10:10:10:10) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 MACA 2137 of 2013 8 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities if any of the appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/29.08.2022