IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 42 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.05.2015 IN OPMV 802/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 AMMUKUTTY
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. VELAYUDHAN, PANAYAMCHIRA VEEDU, PERINKUNNAM P.O.,
THENKURUSSI II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
678702.
2 DAIVANA
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAN, MANNAMKODE, PANTHALIRUPPA, KADUNGAM,
THENKURISSI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678702.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DINESAN K.K, AGE NOTE KNOWN
S/O. KARUPPAN, KIZHAKKOTTU HOUSE, KANJANY P.O., MANALUR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA 680612.
2 DEVADAS
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. KARUPPAN, KIZHAKKOTTU HOUSE, KANJANY P.O., MANALUR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA 680612.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
PIRINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680612.
BY ADV RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
The appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P.(M.V) No.802/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claimants Tribunal, Palakkad on being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded therein. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioner and the respondents in accordance with their status in O.P.(MV).
2. The petitioners are the two daughters of deceased Chella, aged 70 years, who met with an accident on 18.4.2011. While the deceased Chella was standing on the side of Kanjani-Peringottukara road, a motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent hit her and she sustained serious injuries. She succumbed to the injuries on 20.4.2011 while undergoing treatment. According to the petitioners, the accident happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. They claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as total compensation for the death of Chella. M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016 3
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and rider of the vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3 rd respondent insurance company filed written statement admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance; however, contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.
4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the second respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as total compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head underwhich Amount Amount Basis on which
compensation is claimed claimed allowed allowed/disallo
wed with
(in Rupees) (in Rupees)
reasons in a
nut-shell
1. Loss of earnings
2. Partial loss of earnings
3. Medical expenses 5000
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
4
4. Bystander expenses 2000
5. Damages to clothing etc. 3000
6. Transportation 15000
7. Extra nourishment
8. Pain and suffering 40000
9. Loss of love and affection 100000 10000
10. Loss of consortium
11. Loss of estate 50000 5000
12. Loss of 280000 80000 16000x5
dependency/economic
benefits
13. Loss of amenities and
conveniences of
life/disability
14. Loss of earning power
15. Funeral expenses 50000 25000
16. Disfigurement/deformity
17. Any other head 25000
Total 600000 1,20,000 9% p.a.
interest from
date of
petition
5. The appeal is preferred by the petitioners
challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016 5 the Tribunal.
6. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the deceased was working as a coolie and was having an income of Rs.6,000/- per month and that the petitioners were depending on the deceased. The Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. Taking the multiplier as '5 ' and deducting 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate.
7. The contention of the petitioners is that the amount awarded towards loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses is totally inadequate.
8. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, the learned counsel for the insurance company.
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016 6
9. The deceased was aged 70 years at the time of the accident and the petitioners were aged 48 and 38 years respectively and both of them were married. A Division Bench of this Court in Thressiamma and Others v. General Manager and Another [2016 KHC 24] has held that compensation for loss of dependency cannot be awarded in respect of children leading independent life of their own with their spouse and children. In the light of the said decision, the petitioners are not justified in contending that they were depending on their aged mother at the time of the accident. It cannot be said that the death of Chella has resulted in loss of dependency as claimed by the petitioners since they were grown up and living separately with their spouses. Therefore, their contention regarding entitlement of enhanced compensation under the head of loss of dependency cannot be sustained. Though the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, taking into account the M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016 7 compensation awarded under the heads of loss of dependency and funeral expenses, I find that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-+