Kerala High Court
Ammukutty vs Dinesan K.K on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 42 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.05.2015 IN OPMV 802/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 AMMUKUTTY
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. VELAYUDHAN, PANAYAMCHIRA VEEDU, PERINKUNNAM P.O.,
THENKURUSSI II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
678702.
2 DAIVANA
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAN, MANNAMKODE, PANTHALIRUPPA, KADUNGAM,
THENKURISSI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678702.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DINESAN K.K, AGE NOTE KNOWN
S/O. KARUPPAN, KIZHAKKOTTU HOUSE, KANJANY P.O., MANALUR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA 680612.
2 DEVADAS
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. KARUPPAN, KIZHAKKOTTU HOUSE, KANJANY P.O., MANALUR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA 680612.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
PIRINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680612.
BY ADV RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
The appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P.(M.V)
No.802/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claimants
Tribunal, Palakkad on being aggrieved by the amount of
compensation awarded therein. The parties to this appeal will
hereinafter be referred to as petitioner and the respondents in
accordance with their status in O.P.(MV).
2. The petitioners are the two daughters of deceased
Chella, aged 70 years, who met with an accident on
18.4.2011. While the deceased Chella was standing on the
side of Kanjani-Peringottukara road, a motorcycle ridden by
the 2nd respondent hit her and she sustained serious injuries.
She succumbed to the injuries on 20.4.2011 while undergoing
treatment. According to the petitioners, the accident
happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle. They claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as
total compensation for the death of Chella.
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and rider of the
vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3 rd
respondent insurance company filed written statement
admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of
insurance; however, contended that the amount of
compensation claimed is excessive.
4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due
to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the
second respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-
as total compensation with 9% interest per annum from the
date of petition till realisation along with proportionate costs.
The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the
following heads:
Sl.No. Head underwhich Amount Amount Basis on which
compensation is claimed claimed allowed allowed/disallo
wed with
(in Rupees) (in Rupees)
reasons in a
nut-shell
1. Loss of earnings
2. Partial loss of earnings
3. Medical expenses 5000
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
4. Bystander expenses 2000
5. Damages to clothing etc. 3000
6. Transportation 15000
7. Extra nourishment
8. Pain and suffering 40000
9. Loss of love and affection 100000 10000
10. Loss of consortium
11. Loss of estate 50000 5000
12. Loss of 280000 80000 16000x5
dependency/economic
benefits
13. Loss of amenities and
conveniences of
life/disability
14. Loss of earning power
15. Funeral expenses 50000 25000
16. Disfigurement/deformity
17. Any other head 25000
Total 600000 1,20,000 9% p.a.
interest from
date of
petition
5. The appeal is preferred by the petitioners
challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
the Tribunal.
6. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the
deceased was working as a coolie and was having an income
of Rs.6,000/- per month and that the petitioners were
depending on the deceased. The Tribunal took the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. Taking the
multiplier as '5 ' and deducting 1/3rd of the income towards
the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded
an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation under the head
loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of
love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate.
7. The contention of the petitioners is that the amount
awarded towards loss of dependency, loss of love and
affection and funeral expenses is totally inadequate.
8. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, the learned
counsel for the insurance company.
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
9. The deceased was aged 70 years at the time of the
accident and the petitioners were aged 48 and 38 years
respectively and both of them were married. A Division Bench
of this Court in Thressiamma and Others v. General
Manager and Another [2016 KHC 24] has held that
compensation for loss of dependency cannot be awarded in
respect of children leading independent life of their own with
their spouse and children. In the light of the said decision, the
petitioners are not justified in contending that they were
depending on their aged mother at the time of the accident.
It cannot be said that the death of Chella has resulted in loss
of dependency as claimed by the petitioners since they were
grown up and living separately with their spouses. Therefore,
their contention regarding entitlement of enhanced
compensation under the head of loss of dependency cannot
be sustained. Though the Tribunal has awarded only
Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of love and affection and
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, taking into account the
M.A.C.A. No.42 OF 2016
compensation awarded under the heads of loss of dependency
and funeral expenses, I find that the total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the award
passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal fails and it
is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
al/-+
