IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 58 OF 2015
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.03.2014 IN OPMV 435/2013 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:
1 JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.SCARIYA, KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O.,
IMG THAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 JANCY, AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.JOSEPH, KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O.,
IMG THAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3 PRIYYANKA, AGED 30 YEARS
D/O.JOSEPH, KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O.,
IMG THAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV SMT.BIMALA BABY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 ABDUL LATHEEF, EYYATHYTH HOSUE, MENBATH,
POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.
2 JINEESH KUMAR V.P. @ KUTTAN
S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR V.P., VARIKKOLI,
POYILIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE.
3 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NEAR YMCA, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
K.S.SANTHI
SMT.M.MANJU
SRI.R.SUDHISH
LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
GEORGE A.CHERIAN(K/611/2014)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..2..
JUDGMENT
The claimants are the petitioners in O.P. (MV)No.435/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
2. The petitioners have preferred this appeal challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Rose Mary Joseph, in a motor vehicle accident, which happened on 25.02.2012. According to the petitioners, while the deceased was travelling in a bus, the bus hit against an electric post and overturned causing serious injuries to the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. The vehicle was driven by the 2nd respondent. 1St respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The 1st respondent remained ex MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..3..
parte and respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed a written statement admitting the policy. However, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in causing the accident. It was also contended that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. The petitioners filed the original petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,48,576/- as total compensation along with 8% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost to the petitioners. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as follows:
MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..4..
Sl. The compensation claimed Amount Amount
No. under different heads claimed allowed
1 Transport to hospital 5000 1000
2 Damage to clothing and 10000 1000
articles
3 Funeral expenses 50000 10000
4 Loss of love and affection 100000 25000
5 Pain and sufferings 100000 5000
8 Loss of dependency 650000 906576
Total 948576
3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and the 3rd petitioner is the sister of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are totally inadequate.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the deceased was a Nursing Tutor in a Nursing College at Kozhikode and was earning an amount of MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..5..
Rs.8,888/- per month at the time of her death. On the basis of Exts.X1 and X2 produced from the institution where the deceased was working and after examining PW1, the Administrator of the Hospital, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,888/-. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,06,576/- towards loss of dependency. However, the Tribunal did not add future prospects of increase in income while calculating the compensation for loss of dependency.
5. As per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680] 40% can be added towards future prospects. By adding 40% of the income towards future prospects, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,443/- [8,888 + 3,555]. The multiplier to be adopted is '17'. There are three dependents (father, mother and sister). The deceased MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..6..
was not married and ½ has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the compensation for loss of dependency is re-worked as Rs.12,69,206/- [12,443 x 12 x 17 x ½ ]. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.9,06,576/-, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.3,62,630/- [12,69,206 - 9,06,576] under the head loss of dependency.
6. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000 + 10% hike for every three years). Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.6,500/- (16,500 -10,000) under the said head.
7. No amount is awarded under the head loss of estate. Going by the decision reported in Pranay Sethi MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..7..
(supra), the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000 + 10% hike for every three years). The petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.16,500/- under the head loss of estate.
8. No amount has been awarded under the head loss of consortium. Following the ratio in Pranay Sethi (supra) the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% hike for every three years) each for compensation for loss of consortium. Accordingly, towards compensation for loss of consortium, the petitioners (father and mother only) are entitled for Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076], that, when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no justification in awarding compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head. Since the petitioners are entitled for Rs.88,000/-
MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..8..
towards loss of consortium, no further amount is to be awarded under the head loss of love and affection. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- already awarded under the head loss of love and affection has to be deducted from the total compensation.
9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are re-worked as follows:
Sl. The compensation Amount Amount Differenc
No. claimed under allowed modified e
different heads
1 Transport to 1,000 -- --
hospital
2 Damage to 1,000 -- --
clothing and
articles
3 Funeral expenses 10,000 16,500 6,500
4 Loss of love and 25,000 -- -25,000
affection
5. Loss of -- 88,000 88,000
consortium
6 Pain and 5,000 -- --
sufferings
7 Loss of 9,06,576 12,69,206 3,62,630
MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..9..
dependency
8 Loss of estate -- 16,500 16,500
Total 9,48,576 13,90,206 4,48,630
10. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,48,630/- (Rupees four lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred and thirty only). The 2nd respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While calculating the interest on the enhanced compensation, the petitioners will not be entitled for interest for a period of 199 days in the light of the order dated 19.01.2022 in C.M.Application No.1/2015 in the above appeal.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB/01/06/2022