Allowed

Jessy Prakash v. Gayathri Devi Jalan

Kerala HC23 May 2011MACA/1169/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award challenging quantum of compensation. Court enhanced monthly income estimate for loss of dependency, increased awards for loss of consortium and love, and raised interest rate from 6% to 7.5%. Appeal allowed with modification.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 3,30,000 awarded; interest raised to 7.5% per annum; insurer ordered to deposit modified amount.

Jessy Prakash Vs Gayathri Devi Jalan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶5

MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 1169 of 2004()

¶7

----------------------OPMV.725/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶9

¶10

JESSY PRAKASH,W/O.AUGUSTIAN PRAKASH.

¶11

MINOR MARY PRAKASH,D/O.AUGUSTIAN PRAKASH,(MINOR 2ND APPELLANT REP. BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ARATTUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.KURIACHIRA,CHIYYARAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

MRS.GAYATHRI DEVI JALAN, PROP.,M/S.KUMAR AGENCIES,G.G.ROAD,MANGALORE.

¶16

VISHWANATHPOOJARY,S/O.CHENNAPPA POOJARY,RESIDING AT PANEKKALA HOUSE,VEGGA P.O., BUNTROAL JUNCTION.

¶17

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,BRANCH OFFICE,K.S.RAO ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001.

¶18

ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3 SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R1

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶21

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.1169 OF 2004

¶23

- - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2011

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Barkath Ali, J.

¶26

Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)725/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. They are the wife and minor daughter of deceased Augustine Prakash who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated June 11, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 9,35,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of deceased in that accident.

¶27

On November 25,1999 at about 6 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-8/J 7277 along NH 17 and when he reached at Beluk, the car dashed against a tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.C.8691 driven by the second respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained on the spot. Alleging negligence against the driver of the tanker lorry, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶28

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the

¶29

MACA.No.1169/2004 2

¶30

offending tanker lorry remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending tanker lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶31

PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶32

Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶33

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶34

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶35

MACA.No.1169/2004

¶36

¶37

Rs.9,35,000/- The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as

¶38

under:

¶39

Loss of dependency - Rs. 9,00,000/Transportation - Rs. 5,000/Loss of consortium - Rs. 15,000/Loss of love and affection - Rs. 15,000/-

¶40

Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of

¶41

compensation for loss of dependency and on other heads.

¶42

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- and took his contribution to his family as Rs.5,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 as the deceased was aged 42 at the time of the accident and awarded Rs. 9,00,000/- for loss of dependency. According to the claimants, the deceased was having an industry where tyre retreading machines are produced and that he is a film Producer and Director earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Ext.A10 certificate shows that deceased was an active member of MACTA, Film Producers Association. Ext.A12 is the certificate of the membership of the deceased in South India Motion Pictures. Exts.A13 and A14 shows that he was running a tyre retreading machine industry. Ext.A16 shows that the company was having an import and export code.

¶43

MACA.No.1169/2004 4

¶44

Ext.A17 series shows that the deceased was the member of India Junior Chamber. Ext.A18 series shows payment of corporation tax and Ext.A19 shows payment of sales tax. Ext.A20 is the accounts of the said industry. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- per annum can be taken as his contribution to his family. The multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- ( 80,000/- x 15). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶45

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the age of the widow and that of the daughter, we feel that a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- for loss of love and affection would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same

¶46

MACA.No.1169/2004 5

¶47

to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.

¶48

There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation.

¶49

In the result, the claimant are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

¶50

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶51

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶52

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶53

sv.

¶54

MACA.No.1169/2004 6

¶55

MACA.No.1169/2004 7

Jessy Prakash v. Gayathri Devi Jalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy Prakash v. Gayathri Devi Jalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

8AJENDRAN Nair Vs Vikraman

Vattiparambil Asmabi & 2 Others Vs M.K.Anvar Sadath & 2 Others

Mujib Rehaman Vs T.Achuthan

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Laila Beegam & Another

C.P.Alocious Vs Pradeepkumar

M.S.Pemmaiah Vs T.K.Mani