MACA No. 1081 of 2006 against the award in OPMV 452/2002 dated 10-02-2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1081 OF 2006** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 452/2002 DATED 10-02-2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:** **1 MUSTHAFA KUNJU S/O.P.MUHAMMED ALI, PATTAMAMOODU VEEDU, SREEKARIYAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IST APPELLANT IS IN A SEMI CONSCIOUS AND DISORIENTED CONDITION DUE TO THE INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT. HENCE HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS SON M.NIZAR, THE 3RD APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL)** - **2 NAZEEMA, D/O.LATE SULAIHA BEEBI PATTAMAMOODU VEEDU, SREEKARIYAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 M.NIZAR S/O.P.MUSTHAFA KUNJU PATTAMAMOODU VEEDU, SREEKARIYAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.SABU SREEDARAN** M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 2 ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 P.K.MURALEEDHARAN S/O.KARUPPAN PARAYAN VILAPPIL VEEDU, PALISSERY (P.O),, THEKKUMMURI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR.** - **3 M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KESAVA TOWERS, GANDHARIAMMAN KOVIL ROAD, PULIMOODU,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR SMT.P.A.RAZIYA** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.08.2019,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 3 ## **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 Sulaiha Beevi, aged 58 years died in a motor accident took place on 23.12.2001. It is stated in the claim petition that she was a retired government servant earning a pension at Rs.9,250/-. Her husband and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.7,00,000/was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- 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. M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 4 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,250/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. It is conceded that the husband of the deceased is getting almost half of the pension of the deceased as family pension. In the circumstance, according to me, the Tribunal could have reckoned the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of dependency. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the dependants of the deceased were three in number, one third of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged above 50 and below 60, 10% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 5 arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 58, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '9'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.3,56,400/(Rs.4500x12x2/3x110/100x9). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,76,400/-. 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.5,000/- under 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 M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 6 **Pranay Sethi** , and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2001, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.30,000/- to the husband 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.10,000/towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.25,000/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- under those heads. 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 2001, I am of the view that the children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each. As the claimants were M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 7 granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- 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.3,51,400/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.3,51,400/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled 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., 442 days, as ordered by this court. M.A.C.A No.1081 of 2006 8 All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** DK