Kerala High Court

Mumthaj vs Karthikeyan on 31 August, 2022

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
    WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944

                     MACA NO. 2137 OF 2013

 OP(MV)No.615/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:


     1     MUMTHAJ, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR, ALAMPADY,
           KOZHINJAMPARA POST, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR
           TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

     2     JAHIR HUSSAIN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR,
           ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,
           CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

     3     JANNATHUL FIRDOUSE, AGED 25 YEARS,
           D/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR, ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST,
           VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

     4     RAVIATHULBASARIYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR,
           ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,
           CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

     5     PHATHIMABEEVI @ FATHIMABEEVI, AGED 78 YEARS
           W/O LATE MOHAMMED, ALAMPADY, KOZHINJAMPARA POST,
           VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,
           CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
           SMT.P.G.BABITHA


RESPONDENTS/SUPPLEMENTAL 4TH RESPONDENT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:

     1     KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
           S/O LATE RAMANATHAN, 184, ANNANAGAR HOUSING UNIT,
           VEERAKERALAM, COIMBATORE- 641 001.
     MACA 2137 of 2013              2



    2      SHANMUGHAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O KANTHASWAMI CHETTIYAR,
           PALLILTHERUVU, KOZHINJAMPARA POST, PALAKKAD-678 101.

    3      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
           DO 11.16, STATE BANK ROAD, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641 001.

           R3 BY ADVS.
           SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
           SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
           SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN



     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26.08.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA 2137 of 2013                 3



                        JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the claimants in OP(MV) No.615

of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Palakkad. They are disputing the quantum of compensation

awarded on the death of Sri.Abdul Sathar, who met with a road

traffic accident on 02.11.2008 and succumbed to the injuries.

The appellants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.

2. On 02.11.2008, at 5.30 p.m. while Sri.Abdul Sathar was

riding a motorcycle, TN-38/M-5978 vehicle driven by the 2nd

respondent dashed against his motorcycle and he fell down and

sustained serious injuries. On the next day, he succumbed to the

injuries. He was a Teacher working on deputation as BRC Trainer

of Block Resource Centre, Chittur, earning monthly income of

Rs.16,845/- per month. The appellants approached the Tribunal

claiming compensation of Rs.10,50,000/-. But the Tribunal

awarded only Rs.6,96,500/-, which is under challenge.

3. The 3rd respondent in this appeal is the Insurer of the

offending vehicle. The accident, death of Sri.Abdul Sathar and

the insurance policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

4. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in

the impugned award.

5. Admittedly, the deceased Abdul Sathar was a School

Teacher working on deputation as BRC Trainer in Block Resource

Centre and he was drawing monthly income of Rs.16,845/-.

Ext.A19 his last Pay Certificate was proved through PW1. So

there is no dispute regarding his monthly income. He was 54

years old at the time of death as his date of birth was

22.07.1954. The Tribunal applied split multiplier as there was

only one year and 5 months for him to retire from service. So for

that period, his monthly income was taken as Rs.16,845/- and

for the remaining 9 years and 7 months, a notional income of

Rs.4,500/- was fixed. The Apex Court in various decisions

deprecated the practice of applying split multiplier. In Valli vs.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in

[2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1190 (SC)] the Apex Court affirmed the

need of applying the multiplier as laid down in various decisions

including Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) and National Insurance Company

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. So

the Tribunal went wrong in applying split multiplier while

computing dependency compensation.

6. Admittedly, his monthly income was Rs.16,845/-. Since

he was aged only 54, going by Pranay Sethi's case cited

(Supra), he was entitled for 15% addition towards future

prospects. So his income could be assessed as Rs.19,372/- per

month. So, his annual income would have been Rs.2,32,464/-.

When 10% is deducted towards Income Tax, it would become

Rs.2,09,218/-. Since he was having five dependents ¼ has to be

deducted towards his personal expenses. So the balance income

would have been Rs.1,56,914/- per annum. Applying the

multiplier of 11, the compensation for loss of dependency would

have been assessed as Rs.17,26,023/-. On deducting

Rs.6,61,350/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of

dependency, the balance towards enhanced compensation for

loss of dependency would be Rs.10,64,673/-.

7. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards funeral

expenses. The appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So, as

enhanced compensation for funeral expenses, they will get

Rs.12,000/-.

8. Towards loss of estate Rs.5,000/- only was awarded by

the Tribunal, instead of Rs.15,000/-. So under that head, the

appellants will get Rs.10,000/- more as enhanced compensation.

Towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, the

Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- in total. As the appellants are the

wife, children and mother of the deceased, they are eligible to

get compensation for loss of consortium spousal, filial and

parental. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited (Supra), they will

get Rs.44,000/- each including 10% hike for the delay in three

years. So, they are eligible to get total amount of Rs.2,20,000/-

under the head 'loss of consortium'. After deducting Rs.25,000/-

already awarded, they will get Rs.1,95,000/- as enhanced

compensation towards loss of consortium.




Head of claim      Amount          Amount         Difference to be
                 awarded by       awarded in          drawn as
                 the Tribunal       appeal            enhanced
                                                   compensation


Loss of         Rs.6,61,350/-   Rs.17,26,023/-    Rs.10,64,673 /-





dependency

Funeral          Rs.3,000/-      Rs.15,000/-        Rs.12,000/-
expenses

Loss of estate   Rs.5,000/-      Rs.15,000/-        Rs.10,000/-

Loss of          Rs.25,000/-     Rs.2,20,000/-      Rs.1,95,000/-
consortium &
loss of love
and affection

Total                                               Rs.12,81,673/-

Enhanced compensation is Rs.12,81,673/-

9. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced

compensation of Rs.12,81,673/- (10,64,673 + 12,000 + 10,000

+ 1,95,000) (Rupees Twelve Lakh Eighty One Thousand Six

Hundred and Seventy Three only).

10. The respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation in the Bank account of the appellants

with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit (excluding the period of 94 days of delay in filing

the appeal) in the proportion as fixed by the Tribunal

(60:10:10:10:10) within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms