Kerala High Court
Latha vs P.P Padmanabhan on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
MACA NO.824 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2318/2006 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
1 LATHA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE SRI. LALU.
2 MINOR MEERA,
AGED 16 YEARS,
(DATE OF BIRTH 06-06-1996),
DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI.LALU.
3 MINOR NIKHIL,
AGED 15 YEARS,
(DATE OF BIRTH 12-10-1997), SON OF LATE SRI. LALU.
MINOR APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER AND GUARDIAN THE 1ST APPELLANT SMT. LATHA.
ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT PALAKUNNEL HOUSE,
URULANTHANNI DESOM, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE,
P.O. URULANTHANNI, PIN-686691,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
NOW RESIDING AT CHULLY HOUSE, KALLUR
PALAKKAPARAMBU DESOM, KALLUR VILLAGE, P.O.KALLUR,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.ANILA PETER
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SRI.K.R.SUNIL
SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE
M.A.C.A.No.824/2012 2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.P.PADMANABHAN,
PULLATH HOUSE, KALLOORKAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 668.
2 SRI.ABDUL MAJEED,
S/O.ABOOBACKER KOYA HAJI, PANTHAKKIL HOUSE,
ELAVATHUR AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, PAVANADU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 104.
3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
D.O.T.H. TOWERS, MARKET ROAD,
MOOVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN-686 673.
4 P.R.JOHNSON,
S/O.RAJU, PARAKKAL HOUSE, VANDIPPERIYAR P.O.,
VANDIPERIYAR, PIN-685 533.
5 M.K.CHELLAPPAN,
S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, INJIKKAD, ATTOVAN,
VANDIPPERIYAR, P.O.VANDIPPERIYAR, PIN-685 533.
6 THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KANJIRATHANAM BUILDING, CENTRAL JUNCTION,
KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 508.
BY ADVS.
A.R.GEORGE
VPK.PANICKER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.824/2012 3
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.824 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.).No.2318
of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam. The claim petition was filed by them seeking
compensation for the death of one Lalu, who died due to the
injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred on 17.07.2002.
According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 39 and was
working as a driver at the time of accident. The monthly income
claimed was Rs.4,000/-. The accident occurred when the Qualis
car in which he was traveling, collided with a lorry coming from
the opposite side.
2. As compensation, they claimed an amount of
Rs.9,52,500/-, which limited to Rs.9,50,000/-. The claim petition
was contested by the 3rd and 6th respondents- insurance
companies with whom respective vehicles were insured at the
time of the accident. They filed written statement admitting
coverage of policy in respect of the said vehicles, but disputed
the liability by putting the claim upon each other. Evidence in
this case consists of Exts.A1 to A13 from the side of the
appellants and no evidence was adduced from the side of the
respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the finding
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the Qualis car and accordingly, the 3rd respondent, the insurer of
the said vehicle was held responsible to pay the compensation,
being the insurer of the said vehicle. The quantum of
compensation was fixed as Rs.4,31,000/-. Being dissatisfied with
the compensation, this appeal is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel for the
respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the quantum of compensation is extremely low and not in tune
with the settled principles of law. She points out that even
though the monthly income claimed by the appellants was
Rs.4,000/- and Ext.A9 salary certificate as well as Ext.A10 driving
license were produced to substantiate the income, the Tribunal
has taken only Rs.3,000/-. Similarly, it was also pointed out that
no future prospects was taken into consideration while
computing compensation for loss of dependency. Similarly, the
deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses was
/3rd , whereas proper deduction should have been limited to ¼ as
the deceased left behind 5 depending survivors. Further, the
Tribunal has also not granted any amounts towards loss of estate,
loss of consortium and the amount awarded under the head of
funeral expenses was only Rs.4,000/-. On the other hand, the
learned counsel for the insurance company seriously opposes the
said contentions and she submits that the Tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of guidance and
service to children, parents etc., which was not allowable.
5. When considering the question of quantum of
compensation under the head of loss of dependency, it can be
seen that the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as taken by the
Tribunal is low. There is no evidence to show that he was a
driver by profession. However, as the accident occurred in the
year 2002, at any rate, monthly income of Rs.3,000/- is slightly on
the lower side. In my view he would have been getting at least an
amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as monthly income and
accordingly it is reasonable to take the same for compensation.
Similarly, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
[(2017) 16 SCC 680], while computing the compensation for
loss of dependency, future prospects of the deceased also should
be taken into account. As the deceased comes within the age
group of below 40 years, 40% is the appropriate addition to be
made. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellants, the deduction also should have been confined ¼ th
as there are five dependents. At this juncture, the leaned counsel
for the insurance company points out that the multiplier taken by
the Tribunal is 16; but as per the decision in Sarla Verma &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the
proper multiplier is 15. The said contention is legally sustainable,
since the deceased would come within the age group of 35-40
years, and it is accordingly accepted. In the light of the above,
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency has to be
re-worked and while doing so, it comes to Rs.6,61,500/-
[(3500+1400) x 12 x 15 x ¾]. The Tribunal has already awarded
an amount of Rs.3,84,000/- under this head and hence, the
balance amount comes to Rs.2,77,500/-.
6. Next aspect is with regard to the compensation for
loss of consortium. It is seen that the amount awarded under the
head of loss of spousal consortium is Rs.15,000/-, which is
inadequate. In United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and other [2020 (3) KHC 760], the
Honourable Supreme Court stipulted that in the case of death of
a person, spouse of the deceased shall be entitled for spousal
consortium, children shall be entitled for parental consortium
and filial consortium shall be granted to the parents of the
deceased. The rate of compensation under this head was fixed as
Rs.40,000/- each. In this case, the deceased left behind wife, two
children and aged parents. In such circumstances, all the
petitioners in the orginal petition shall be entitled for
compensation under the heads of spousal, parental and filial
consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each and thus it comes to
Rs.2,00,000/-. As the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under this
head, the appellants will be entitled for further sum of
Rs.1,85,000/-.
7. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant, no amount should have been granted by the Tribunal
under the head of loss of guidance and service to the children,
parents etc. This is not necessary, particularly because, this
Court has already granted compensation under the head of loss
of consortium to all the petitioners in the claim petition, which
would take care the compensation under that head as well. In
such circumstances, amount of Rs.20,000/- granted under that
head is set aside. No amount is seen awarded under the head of
loss of estate. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount to be
awarded is Rs.15,000/- and it is granted. Similarly, the amount
granted under the head of funeral expenses is only Rs.4,000/-,
which is lessor by Rs.11,000/- as the proper amount is
Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, that amount is also to be granted.
Accordingly this appeal is disposed of, fixing the additional
amount receivable by the appellants as Rs.4,68,500/-
[277500+1,85,000+15000+11000-20000] (Rupees four lakhs
sixty eight thousand and five hundred only) and the insurance
company shall deposit the said amount along with interest as
ordered by the Tribunal along with proportionate cost within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.(JUDGE)
DG
