Kerala High Court
Sakunthala Janardhanan vs Simon John 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. 1518 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 571/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SAKUNTHALA JANARDHANAN
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. LATE JANARDHANAN, MENOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PURANATTUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 RAJESH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. LATE JANARDHANAN, MENOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PURANATTUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 RAJI
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. LATE JANARDHANAN, MENOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PURANATTUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SIMON JOHN
CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.
2 SAJEEVAN
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MONKADIYIL HOUSE, THALIKULAM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY ADV DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1518 of 2013 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.1518 of 2013
------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in
OP (MV) No.571 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur. They are challenging the impugned award for
inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellants are the wife and children of one
Mr.Janardhanan who died in a road traffic accident occurred on
17.11.2005. Sri.Janardhanan, a 58 year old business man while
riding his Scooty, was knocked down by KL-08/B 4950 bus driven
by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Though he
was rushed to Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur, on the next
day, he succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of
Sri.Janardhanan approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.4,92,450/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,86,100/-, and
that is under challenge in this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner, 2nd respondent was the
driver and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending bus.
4. The insurer is not disputing the death of Sri.Janardhanan in
the accident occurred on 17.11.2005 involving KL-8/B 4950 bus. It
is also not in dispute that the offending bus was validly insured
with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident. But, according
to the 3rd respondent, there was violation of the policy conditions
since the 2nd respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of
accident.
5. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in
the impugned award.
6. According to the appellants, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is too low. Though he
claimed Rs.4 lakh, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,16,000/-, fixing
notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The
deceased was a 58 year old business man earning monthly income
of Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal did not accept the income of the
deceased as stated by the claimants, and it could not be justified
according to them. Since there was no evidence to prove the
income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed his income notionally at
Rs.3,000/- per month. Even going by Ramchandrappa vs.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951), in the year 2005, his income would
have been fixed at Rs.5,000/-, and he was eligible to get addition
of 10% towards future prospects since he was aged below 60,
without a permanent job. So, his notional income would have been
fixed at Rs.5,500/- per month. On deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses, the multiplicant would have been fixed as
Rs.3,666/-. Since he was aged 58, the multiplier would be 9. So
the compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed
as Rs.3,95,928/- (3666x12x9). Rs.2,16,000/- was already
awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'. So, the appellants
are entitled to get the balance Rs.1,79,928/- as enhanced
compensation towards loss of dependency.
7. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the
appellants were awarded only Rs.5,000/- each. Going by the
decision National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], they are eligible to get
Rs.15,000/- each under the head funeral expenses and loss of
estate. So, they are eligible to get enhanced compensation of
Rs.10,000/- each under the head loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
8. Towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium,
the appellants were awarded Rs.40,000/- in total. Going by Pranay
Sethi's case cited supra, the wife and children of the deceased are
entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each including 10% addition for the
delay of three years, amounting to Rs.1,32,000/- in total. After
deducing Rs.40,000/- already awarded, they are eligible to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.92,000/- under the head loss of
spousal and filial consortium.
9. Towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- was awarded by
the Tribunal. The legal heirs are not entitled to get compensation
for pain and sufferings of the deceased and so, that amount has to
be deducted from the award amount.
Head of Amount Amount Amounts Difference to
claim awarded by awarded in deducted in be drawn as
the Tribunal appeal appeal enhanced
(2) (3) (4) compensation
(1) (5)
Loss of Rs.2,16,000/- Rs.3,95,928/- Rs.1,79,928/-
dependency
Funeral Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-
expenses
Loss of Rs.5000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-
estate
Loss of love Rs.40,000/- 1,32,000/- Rs.92,000/-
and affection
& loss of
consortium
Pain and Rs.10,000/- - Rs.10,000/- -
sufferings
Total Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,91,928/-
Enhanced compensation (291928-10000) Rs.2,81,928/-
10. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,81,928/- (179928+10000+ 10000+92000-
10000).
The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation in the Bank Account of the appellants 1 to 3 in the
ratio 50:25:25 with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be
in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of
2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016
dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the
appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
The 3rd respondent/insurer is entitled to recover the amount so
deposited from the 1st respondent-owner and his assets as there
was violation of the policy conditions
This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
