Omanavally and others v. A.E. Ramankutty and Shanavas and The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939 MACA.No. 931 of 2010 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 901/2004 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 02-09-2008 ## APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS IN OP (MV) 1 OMANAVALLY, W/O.LATE ALOOR KALARIKAL HARI, RESIDING AT KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE,, POST ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 AKHIL KRISHNA, MINOR, AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALOOR KALARIKAL HARI, RESIDING AT, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE, POST ALOOR, THRISSUR, DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN-NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER IST APPELLANT. - 3 ADHVAIDHA KRISHNA, MINOR, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALOOR KALARIKAL HARI, RESIDING AT, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE, POST ALOOR, THRISSUR, DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN-NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER IST APPELLANT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ## 1. A.E.RAMANKUTTY, S/O.EKKORAN, AMBAYANATH HOUSE, RESIDING AT MANAVLANGOOR,, POST ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. SHANAVAS, S/O.MARIAM BEEVI HANEEFA, VATTEKKATTU HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI. ## 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. R,R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-12-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V, JJ. ----------------------------------------------MACA. No. 931 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of December, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## Shircy V,J. The wife and the minor children of one Hari who died in a road traffic accident on 6.7.2002 are the appellants herein. They have filed this appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on his death . 2. The factum of the accident, negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent in driving the vehicle owned by the 2[nd] respondent, the insurance coverage of the vehicle and the liability of the 3[rd] respondent to pay the compensation are not in dispute. 3. It is stated in the petition that on 6.7.2002 while the deceased was riding a motor cycle through the public road, he was knocked down by a car driven by the 1[st] respondent MACA.931/2010 2 and owned by the 2[nd] respondent. Though, he was immediately rushed to the nearby hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was aged only 35 years and he was a Degree holder working as a tuition teacher and an astrologer, earning a monthly income of Rs.6000/-. So also they have a case that the deceased was holding a conductor's licence at the time of his death. But the Tribunal without considering all those facts have fixed only a nominal amount of Rs.2250/- as his monthly income and a meager amount was awarded as the compensation to the claimants on that basis. On going through the records we find that the deceased was holding a Degree in Science and he was also earning money as an astrologer. The fact that he was holding a conductor's licence also would establish the fact that he was capable of earning money more than what the Tribunal has fixed . So, we feel that what the Tribunal had fixed as his monthly income is definitely on the MACA.931/2010 3 lower side and so we fix it as Rs.5500/- to assess the amount of compensation entitled to the family on the death of the deceased. It is to be noted that he was only aged 35 years at the time of his death and so the correct multiplier is 16 . But the Tribunal wrongly assessed the compensation by adopting the multiplier as 17. Taking into consideration of the entire facts involved we think that the compensation entitled to the appellants has to be re-fixed in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the latest decision in **National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 (4) KLT 662) .** Therefore towards consortium an amount of Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded. That will entitle the appellants to get a further amount of Rs.20,000/- under that head. So also as loss of estate nothing has been granted. Applying the principles laid down in that decision we award Rs.15,000/- on that head. So also as funeral expenses only Rs.3000/- has been granted which is on the lower side. Therefore, the MACA.931/2010 4 appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.12000/-. As transportation charges nothing has been granted and hence a sum of Rs.3500/- is granted. Towards loss of love and affection though the deceased had two minor children of age 5 years and 1 year at the time of his death, only a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which is definitely on the lower side and we enhance it as Rs.25,000/- each which would entitle them to get a further amount of Rs.30,000/- under that head. So also the compensation awarded as loss of dependency have to be reassessed by taking the income as Rs.5500/- and adopting multiplier as 16 as he was aged 35 years at time of his death. When amount is calculated under that head the appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.7,04,000/(5500x12x16x2/3). After deducting the amount of Rs.3,06,000/- already awarded the appellants are entitled to get a further amount of Rs.3,98,000/- under that count. We do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of MACA.931/2010 5 compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering. So, in total the appellants are entitled to get a further amount of Rs.4,78,500/-. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.4,78,500/- as compensation. The said amount will carry interest at the same rate as ordered by the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent shall deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The share of the minor children, shall remain in deposit till they attain the age of majority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SHIRCY V, JUDGE Pmn/ MACA.931/2010 6 MACA.931/2010 7 MACA.931/2010 8