Diana Antony & Others v Abdul Rahim & Others (MACA No.1108 of 2014)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 8TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1108 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.321/2008 DATED 19-06-2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 DIANA ANTONY, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.LATE ANTONY @ SEVI, NJARAKKULATH HOUSE, MADAKKUNNU POST, WAYANAD DIST.** - **2 SONA (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS, D/O.LATE ANTONY @ SEVI, REP BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, 1ST APPELLANT.** **3 SANDRA (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS, D/O.LATE ANTONY @ SEVI, REP BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, 1ST APPELLANT.** - **4 N. ULAHANNA, AGED 77 YEARS, F/O.LATE ANTONY @ SEVI, NJAKKULATH HOUSE, MADAKKUNNU POST, WAYANAD DIST.** - **5 BRIJITHA,** **AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.N ULAHANNAN, M/O.LATE ANTONY @ SEVI, NJAKKULATH HOUSE, MADAKKUNNU POST, WAYANAD DIST.** **BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MUHAMMED, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, CHEEYAMBAM,** M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 2 ## **PULPALLY-673579.** - **2 NOUSHAD** **AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.MAMMOONHU, 6/847, PAINATTU HOUSE, MULLANKOLLY, WAYANAD DIST, PIN-673579.** - **3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, KALPANA SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121.** **R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 3 ## **M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014** ## **---------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. One Antony aged 39 years died in a motor accident took place on 22.03.2008. It is stated in the claim petition that he was an agriculturist. His parents, wife and two daughters were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,47,500/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, in the M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 4 absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.4,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea as regards the income of the deceased, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq** v. **Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** , [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/- in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, I am of the view that the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case could have been certainly reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.6,500/-, in the context of the accident took place in 2008. In the light of the decision of the M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 5 Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the dependants of the deceased were five in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged below 40, 40% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 39, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '15'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.12,28,500/(Rs.6500x12x3/4x140/100x15). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.7,16,500/-. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5000/- under M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 6 that head. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, Rs.10,000/- would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants under that head. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of additional compensation. 7. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2008, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.35,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards compensation for loss of consortium. Similarly, in the light of the said decision, the Tribunal should have granted to the claimants Rs.12,500/towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.12,500/towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.15,000/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.45,000/- under those heads. M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 7 8. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and others** (2018 ACJ 2782) and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2008, I am of the view that the parents and children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- each. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- by way of additional compensation. 9. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 10. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,96,500/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.8,96,500/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled M.A.C.A No.1108 of 2014 8 to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. It is made clear that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the additional compensation granted for the period of delay in filing appeal, viz, 1295 days, as ordered by this court. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** YKB