Kerala High Court
Gangadevi And Others vs Salim on 12 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) 1203/2007 DATED 22-12-2010 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 GANGADEVI AND OTHERS
W/O.SARAVANAN (DIED),, KOCHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,,
CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 SARATHKUMAR MINOR AGED 12 YEARS
S/O.SARAVANAN (LATE),, DO. DO.,, REP. BY HIS MOTHER
GANGADEVI.
3 DAVIKA MINOR AGED 3 YEARS
D/O.SARAVANAN (LATE), DO. DO.,, REP. BY HER MOTHER
GANGADEVI.
4 LAKSHMIYAMMA AGED 72 YEARS
W/O.RADHAKRISHNA,, KOCHERIPARAMBIL, CHERPU, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SALIM, AGE NOT KNOWN,
S/O.HAMSA, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,, KOORKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR TALUK,, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN-680603,,
(OWNER CUM DRIVER OF CAR KL-8 AM 3473).
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, NO.I, T.D. BUILDING,, P.B. NO. 158,
ROUND WEST, THRISSUR,, POLICY NO.3995/2007, PIN-
680601,, POLICY VAID UP TO 21/8/07).
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.930 of 2011
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in O.P. (M.V. )No.
1203/07 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ottappalam. It is a claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The short facts are like this: The deceased
Saravanan in this case was travelling in a motor bike
bearing registration No. KL-8 AG 1118 as pillion rider
through the Thrissur-Irinjalakuda road. When the
vehicle reached the place of occurrence at Chevoor, a
car bearing registration No. KL-8 AM 3473 driven by the
first respondent, hit on the motor cycle. According to
the claimants, the car driver was rash and negligent.
Due to the impact of the hit, the deceased Saravanan,
who was the original 1st petitioner, sustained severe
injuries. The Tribunal found that Saravanan died due to
the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
claimants, they are entitled compensation from the first
and second respondents. The appellants are legal heirs
of the deceased Saravanan.
3. This O.P.(MV) No. 1203/07 was tried along
with O.P (MV)No. 1133/07. To substantiate the case,
Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the
claimants. Two witnesses were examined on the side of
the claimants as PW1 and PW2. Exts.B1 and B2 were
marked on the side of the respondents. After going
through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found
that the appellants are entitled compensation of
Rs.6,58,100/- with interest. Aggrieved by the quantum
of compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the Standing counsel for the Insurance company.
5. The submission of the counsel for the
appellants is that the monthly income of the deceased
fixed by the Tribunal is too low. The counsel submitted
that the deceased was a gold worker and he was getting
Rs.6,000/- per month. The incident happened on
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
26.6.2007. The Apex Court in the judgment in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd. (2011 (13) SCC 236),
the monthly income of a coolie was fixed as Rs.4,500/-
in 2004. If that is taken as the basis, this Court can
safely fix the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.6,000/- in the year 2007. Moreover, 40% is to be
added towards future prospectus as per the judgment of
the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.,
V. Pranay Sethi (2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC). Hence,
the monthly income of the deceased can be safely fixed
as Rs.8,400/-. If that be the case, the dependency
compensation is to be re-assessed in the following
manner : Rs.8,400x12x16x3/4= Rs.12,09,600/-. From
the above amount, the amount already granted
(Rs.3,84,000/-) is to be deducted. Therefore, the
appellant is entitled the balance amount of
Rs.8,25,600/-as enhanced compensation.
(Rs.12,09,600/- - Rs.3,84,000/- = Rs.8,25,600/-).
6. The counsel for the appellant submitted that
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
no amount is awarded for pain and suffering and the
legal heirs are entitled compensation for the pain and
suffering because the deceased was in hospital for 98
days. But the Standing counsel for the insurance
company relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur and Others (2020 (3) KHC 760 SC)
in which it is stated that the legal heirs are not entitled
any amount for pain and suffering. The relevant
paragraph is extracted hereunder.
"Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the
family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such
multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the
family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the
range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be
added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is
survived by his widow, another conventional
amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/-
should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded
under the head of pain, suffering or hardship
caused to the legal heirs of the deceased".
7. There is some force in the argument of the
learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company in
the facts and circumstances of this case. Even without
relying the above judgment, according to me, a just and
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
reasonable amount is awarded as dependency
compensation. Therefore, the appellants who are the
legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled any amount
for pain and suffering. As far as the loss of consortium
is concerned only Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the
Tribunal. As per the decision in Pranay Sethi's case the
spouse is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards
consortium. Moreover, the wife of the deceased is
entitled for another amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss
of consortium. Moreover, the children and mother are
entitled an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
consortium in the light of the consortium to the children
and mother. Therefore, they are entitled Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of consortium. The appellants are
entitled an amount of Rs.10,000/- more for funeral
expenses in the light of the decision of of the Apex Court
in Pranay Sethi's case. Moreover, the appellants are
entitled an amount of Rs.5,000/- more towards loss of
estate also in the light of the decision of the Apex Court
in Pranay Sethi's case. Therefore, the enhanced
MACA.No.930 OF 2011(C)
amount of compensation entitled by the appellants can
be summarised like this:
1. Loss of dependencies - Rs.8,25,600/-
2. Loss of consortium to the
wife, children and mother - Rs.1,45,000/-
3. Loss of estate - Rs.5,000/-
4. Funeral expenses - Rs.10,000/-
Total - Rs. 9,85,600/-
8. The appellants are entitled interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of application till its realisation as
far as the enhanced compensation is concerned.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned award is modified. The appellants are entitled
enhanced compensation of Rs.9,85,600/- with interest
@ 8% per annum from the date of application till
realisation.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
al/-
