C.K. Meenakshy Reghuvaran v. Paulose P.P., Abdul Rahman and The United India Insurance Company Limited

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/1ST ASHADHA, 1939** ## **MACA.No. 1949 of 2012 ()** **------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2683/2008 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED 09-05-2012 --------------------------------------------** **APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS : -----------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. C.K. MEENAKSHY REGHUVARAN, AGFD 58 YEARS,** **W/O. LATE REGHUVARAN, PATHARA HOUSE, EAST TO POTTAYIL TEMPLE, EROOR P.O., NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. JAYAN P.R., AGED 42 YEARS,** **S/O. LATE REGHUVARAN, PATHARA HOUSE, EAST TO POTTAYIL TEMPLE, EROOR P.O., NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. SURESH P.R., AGED 40 YEARS,** **S/O. LATE REGHUVARAN, PATHARA HOUSE, EAST TO POTTAYIL TEMPLE, EROOR P.O., NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SMT.T.MANASY** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PAULOSE P.P.** **S/O. PAILY, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, NEAR POLICE STATION, MALAYIDOM THRUTHU P.O., KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE-683562.** ## **2. ABDUL RAHMAN** **S/O. SAIDALI, 2/672, NEDUNGATTUKUDI HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683550.** ## **3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURACNE COMPANY LIMITED** **2ND FLOOR, PMS BUILDING, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERY, 683501.** ## **R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **VS** ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & ANIL.K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ============================= M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012** **============================ Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ANIL.K.NARENDRAN, J.** This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam dated 09.05.2012 in O.P.(MV)No.2683/2008, a claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Reghuvaran, husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, who died in a motor accident occurred on 06.07.2008 while riding a bicycle. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a lorry bearing Reg.No.KRF 1518, owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. As a result of the accident, the said Reghuvaran sustained serious injuries, _M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012 -2-_ who succumbed to the injuries on 06.07.2008 while undergoing inpatient treatment. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- under different heads, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. 2. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 3. After considering the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the second respondent driver. Since the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy, the third respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the first respondent owner. Under different heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,86,325/- and directed the third respondent insurer to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, together with proportionate cost. _M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012_ _-3-_ 4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal. 5. We heard the arguments. 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal under different heads. 7. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 28.06.2008 and at the time of accident the deceased was aged 59 years. The appellants/claimants contended that at the time of accident the deceased was a rubber tapper, earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal reckoned his monthly income notionally as Rs.2,500/-. We find that the accident is of the year 2008 and at the time of accident the deceased was an able bodied person aged 59 years eking his livelihood as a rubber tapper and maintaining his family consisting of wife and two children. Considering the economic situations prevailing at the time of accident, _M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012 -4-_ we find no grounds to disbelieve the version of the appellants/claimants that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, for the purpose of assessing compensation under different heads, the monthly income of the deceased is notionally fixed as Rs.5,000/-. 8. Since the deceased was aged 59 years, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] is 9. Since the family of deceased consisted of his wife and two children, 1/3[rd] of the notional income will have to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and the remaining 2/3[rd] alone can be reckoned for the purpose of assessing dependency compensation. 9. Reckoning the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- and deducting 1/3[rd] towards his personal and living expenses and adopting a multiplier of 9, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as dependency compensation [2500x12x9x2/3]. Since we _M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012 -5-_ have already refixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- the compensation payable under this head is refixed as Rs.3,60,000/- [5000x12x9x2/3], resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,80,000/-.** 10. Towards funeral expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh**_ [2013 (3) KLT 89], the compensation payable under this head will have to be refixed as Rs.25,000/-. In the result, the appellants will be entitled for an additional compensation of **Rs.17,500/-** under this head. 11. Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Rajesh's case [supra]** the compensation under this head will have to be refixed as Rs.1,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.95,000/-** payable to the first appellant. 12. Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged 59 years and his children namely _M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012_ _-6-_ the second and the third appellants were aged 38 and 36 years respectively. In **Rajesh's case [supra]** the Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection to three minor children of the deceased. In the instant case, considering the age of the deceased and the age of his children at the time of accident, we deem it appropriate to refix the compensation under this head as Rs.75,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.45,000/-** payable to the second and the third appellants. 13. Though no amount is claimed towards loss of estate, we deem it appropriate to grant a conventional amount under this head. In such circumstances, the appellants will be entitled for a sum of **Rs.5,000/-** under this head. 14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, namely, transportation expenses (Rs.1,000/-), pain and suffering (Rs.15,000/-), medical expenses (Rs.47,825/-) represents just and reasonable compensation which warrants no interference in this _M.A.C.A. No.1949 of 2012_ _-7-_ appeal. 15. In the result, the appellants will be entitled for an - additional compensation of **Rs.3,42,500/** [1,80,000+7,500+95,000+45,000+5,000], which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Since the insurance coverage of the vehicle is not in dispute the third respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **ANIL.K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** VS /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE