Kerala High Court
Elsy & Others vs Shaji on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 766/2002 DATED 18-12-2006 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS:
1 ELSY & OTHERS
MENACHERY HOUSE, KUTTILAKKARA,
PIRAROOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 ANJU PAUL MINOR
D/O.DECEASED POULOSE, MENACHERY HOUSE,
PIRAOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER ELSY,
W/O. POULOSE -DO- -DO-.
3 ANU PAUL DO. POULOSE
MINOR, D/O. DECEASED POULOSE,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER ELSY,
W/O. POULOSE -DO- -DO-.
BY ADVS.
SRI.WILSON URMESE
SRI.M.C.ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHAJI, S/O SREEDHARAN,
BLAI HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 A.A. GEORGE SO. ESTHAPPANU
ATTUPURAM HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DIST.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH JUNCTION,,
ERNAKULAM-1797, CUSTOMER CARE BRANCH.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-03-2021, THE COURT ON 16-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
MACA No.617 OF 2008
===================
Dated this the 16th day of March 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased
Poulose, who died in a Motor Accident. When this appeal
came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that, the 1st appellant died during the
pendancy of this appeal and appellants 2 and 3 are the
only legal heirs of the deceased 1st appellant. The Registry
will carryout the necessary amendment in the cause title.
2. The short facts are like this:_
On 28.04.2002 at about 8.45 pm, while the
deceased was walking through M.C. Road from Millumpady
to Vengoor in the west-east direction on the left side of the
M.C. Road, and when he reached near Vengoor Co-
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
operative Society, an Ambassador car bearing Registration
No. KL-7-AB-1600 driven by the 1st respondent came from
the opposite direction in a hectic speed hit against the
deceased and he sustained injuries. According to the
appellants, the accident caused solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the car driven by the 1 st respondent.
The appellants claim an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as
compensation from the respondents.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts. A1 to A6 were
marked on the side of the appellants. After going through
the pleadings and documents, the tribunal found that, the
appellants are entitled an amount of Rs.2,89,400/-, with
7% interest per annum from the date of application till
realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
this appeal is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
that, the deceased was working as loading and unloading
worker and the tribunal fixed the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.2,000/-. According to the learned counsel,
even a coolie will get more than Rs.2000/- per month in
the year 2002, in which the accident happened. There is
some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants. In Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal
Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236], the Apex Court fixed
an amount of Rs.4500/- as monthly income to a coolie in
the year 2004. Taking the dictum in the above decision,
this Court can safely fix the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month. Moreover, in the light
of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4) KLT 662], 25%
increase is to be made for future prospectus. Then the
monthly income of the deceased can be fixed as
Rs.4375/-. In the light of the above change in the monthly
income of the deceased, the compensation for dependency
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
is to be reassessed in the following manner:-
Rs.4,375 X 12 X 15 X 3/4 = Rs.5,90,625/-
6. An amount of Rs. 2,40,120/- is already given by
the tribunal and that is to be deducted from the above
amount. The balance amount will be:- Rs.5,90,625-
Rs.2,40,120 = Rs.3,50,505/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2000/- for
funeral expense. The appellants are entitled
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expense. Therefore, the appellants
are entitled a balance of Rs.13,000/- for funeral expense.
The loss of consortium and loss of love and affection only
an amount of Rs.35,000/- is allowed by the tribunal. In the
light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), the appellants are entitled an amount of
Rs.40,000/- each towards the consortium. The appellants
are the wife and minor children of the deceased. Hence,
the appellants are entitled a total of amount of
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
Rs.1,20,000/- The tribunal already awarded Rs.35,000/-
and that is to be deducted from the above amount. Then
the balance amount will be Rs.1,20,000-Rs.35,000 =
Rs.85,000/-. The appellants are also entitled an amount
of Rs.15, 000/-towards loss of estate.
8. In the light of the above discussion, the
enhanced compensation entitled by the appellants can be
summarized like this:
1. Compensation for loss of
dependency - Rs.3,50,505/-
2. Loss of Consortium - Rs.85,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses - Rs.13,000/-
4. Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
------------------
Total Rs.4,63,505/-
== ========
9. The appellants are entitled interest @ 8% per
annum. But I make it clear that, the appellants are not
entitled interest for a period of 239 days, because the
appeal is filed with a delay of 239 days and this Court as
per order 21.10.2020 ordered that, the appellants are not
MACA.No.617 OF 2008
entitled interest during that period.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned award is modified to the effect that the
appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,63,505/- with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of
petition till realisation. I make it clear that, the appellants
are not entitled interest for the period of 239 days. The 3 rd
respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation
with interest.
(Sd/-)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
LU
