Devaki Amma And 4 Others v. Shaji And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/2ND CHAITHRA, 1937 MACA.No. 167 of 2008 ( ) ------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 88/1999 of M.A.C.T.,PUNALUR DATED 04-12-2006 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
------------------------------
1. DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 43, D/O. DRAUPATHI ANTHARJANAM, MELAYUZHITHRA PALLIYILLAM, ELAMAD VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, W/O. DECEASED, VISHNU NAMPOOTHIRI.
2. SALINI, AGED 19, MELAYUZHITHRA PALLIYILLAM, ELAMAD VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, D/O. DECEASED.
3. SYAMINI, AGED 13, (MINOR), MELAYUZHITHRA PALLIYILLAM, ELAMAD VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, D/O. DECEASED.
4. SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM, AGED 63, MELAYUZHITHARA PALLIYILLAM, ELAMAD VILLAGE KOTTARAKARA TALUK, (M/O. DECEASED) BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------
1. SHAJI, S/O. K.C.EPPAN, SHIJU SADANAM, MANNADY P.O., ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA. (REGD. OWNER AND DRIVER OF KL-3B- 2194 TEMPO-MDL-PA-598/89, BADGE NO.PA-202191) (DELETED).
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., P.B.NO.656 VIJAYANAGAR BUILDING, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA POLICY NO.1999-1530, VALID FOR 24.6.1998 TO 25.6.1999.
* RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2013 IN I.A.NO.2993/2013 R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.167 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
Asha, J.
The appellants are the mother, widow and children of deceased Vishnu Nampoodiri who met with an accident on 22.10.1998 while riding his scooter. The scooter he was riding was hit by a lorry causing fatal injuries to him. He was taken to the Medical College Hosptial, Thiruvananthapuram and after 8 days of treatment in the Intensive Care Unit, he succumbed to the injuries on 29.10.1998. 2.
The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of `18 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 5,79,426/-. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the inadequacy on various grounds.
3.
We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 4.
The deceased was working as an Assistant Development Officer in the Rubber Board. He was drawing a salary of ` 9,275/-.
The Tribunal reckoned the net salary of `4,238/- only after deducting the contributions under various heads and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, the compensation granted under the head of loss of dependency was ` 5,42,464/-. The Salary Certificate Ext.A12 shows that the deceased was drawing a sum of `9,275/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have reckoned the entire salary for computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, instead of taking the net salary. Therefore, we take the salary of ` 9,275/-. Since the deceased was in the age group of below 50, 50% of the same has to be added towards future prospects. Thus the income has to be reckoned as `13,912.5/-. The annual income will come to `1,66,950/-. If 10% of the same is deducted towards income tax, the same will come to `1,50,255/-.
The deceased was aged 39 years. Therefore, the proper multiplier to be adopted is 15. Since there were four dependents, 1⁄4 of the same has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus the compensation under the head of loss of dependency will come to `16,90,369/- ( 150255 x 15 x 3⁄4).
5.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `10,000/- alone towards pain and suffering. It is seen that the deceased had to undergo
treatment in Intensive Care Unit for 8 days. Therefore, we enhance the same to `20,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `10,000/- alone towards loss of love and affection and another `10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh v.Rajbir Singh ( 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC), we enhance the same to `1,00,000/- each. Towards funeral expenses, we award a sum of `25,000/- and towards loss of estate, a sum of `50,000/- is awarded. 6.
Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows :
Head of claim Amount Awarded in rupees Loss of dependency 1690369 Pain and suffering 20000 Loss of love and affection 100000 Loss of consortium 100000 Funeral expenses 25000 Loss of estate 50000 Transportation Medical expense Total 1990331 Round off to `19,90,330/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs ninety thousand three hundred thirty only)
7.
It is seen that there was a delay of 1503 days in filing the appeal. It is made clear that the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay interest for the above period.
The enhanced compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition, subject to the above direction. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is any deficit in court fee, the same shall be recovered by the Tribunal before disbursing the amount to the appellants. Out of the compensation awarded, ` 1,00,000/- shall be given to the mother and 50% of the remaining shall be given to the widow and 25% each to the children. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE sv.