MACA.No.951 OF 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1941** **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31-05-2011 IN O.P (MV) 2987/2004 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-** - **1 SHEEJA W/O LATE GOPINATHAN MAMPULLY HOUSE, P.O ANTHIKKAD THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAGESH S/O LATE GOPINATHAN -DO-DO-DO-** - **3 GOSHIJ S/O LATE GOPINATHAN -DO-DO-DO** - **4 PREMAVATHY W/O BALAN VADASSERY HOUSE, MANALOOR WEST MANALOOR P.O, THRISSUR.** - **5 INDIRA BALAKRISHNAN W/O BALAKRISHNAN VALAKKADAVIL HOUSE, ETTUMANA P.O THRISSUR.** - **6 SANTHAKUMARI VALSAN KUDUVARAVALAPPIL HOUSE VADOOKKARA, KOORKENCHERY P.O THRISSUR.** - **7 ANANDAMOHANAN KOOTTALA HOUSE, MANGATTUKARA, ANTHIKKAD P.O THRISSUR.** **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **2** - **8 SURESH BABU M.M S/O LATE MADHAVAN MAMBULLY HOUSE KANJANI, THRISSUR.** - **9 LALITHA RAMANATHAN W/O LATE RAMANATHAN -DO-DO-DO-** - **10 RAJITH S/O LATE RAMANATHAN -DO-DO-DO-** - **11 RATHEESH S/O LATE RAMANATHAN -DO-DO-DO-** - **12 RAJI DELEEP D/O LATE RAMANATHAN -DO-DO-DO-** - **13 VINEESH S/O LATE VASANTHAKUMARI THARIKKAL HOUSE PONGANAMKADU KURICHIKKARA P.O, THRISSUR.** - **14 VINEETHA D/O LATE VASANTHAKUMARI THANIKKAL HOUSE -DO-DO-DO-** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-** - **1 N.AJITH S/O THANKAMMA METHIL HOUSE, KATHAMPOTTA CHITTILAMCHERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.** **2 K.R.SASI S/O RAMAKRISHNAN PULIKKAL VEEDU, KANIMANGALAM PO. ELAVUMPADAM VADAKKENCHERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 684.** **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **3** **3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD P.B.NO.66 ALENGADAN BUILDING IRINJALAKUDA, PIN - 680 121.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **4** ## **M.A.C.A No.951 of 2013** **---------------------------------------------** ## **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 Gopinathan, aged 45 years died in a motor accident took place on 27.4.2004. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a driver. His mother, wife and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.9,94,500/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.4,01,000/- 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. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,750/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.3,000/- for the purpose **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **5** 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, I am of the view that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- in the context of the accident took place in the year 2004, I am of the view that the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case can be certainly reckoned at Rs.4,500/-, in the context of the accident took place in the year 2004. 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 four in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged above 40 and below 50, 25% 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 45, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '14'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.7,08,750/- **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **6** (Rs.4500x12x3/4x125/100x14). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,48,750/-. 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.6,000/- under that head. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Rs.10,000/- would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants under that head. The claimants are, therefore, granted a sum of Rs.4,000/- by way of additional compensation under this head. 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 2004, 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, the Tribunal should have granted to the claimants Rs.12,500/- towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.12,500/- towards funeral expenses totalling to Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.25,000/- under those three heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **7** ## Rs.35,000/- 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 2004, I am of the view that the mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under that head, totalling to Rs.1,15,000/-. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- by way of additional compensation. 9. No compensation is seen granted by the Tribunal towards transportation and damage to clothing and articles. According to me, even in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal should have granted nominal amounts by way of compensation under those heads also. Having regard to the facts of the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant to the claimants Rs.2,000/- under those heads. 10. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 11. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,94,750/- **MACA.No.951 OF 2013** **8** by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.4,94,750/- 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. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** ## **sma**