Partly allowed

Prameela v. T.B.Babu

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011MACA/74/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the compensation award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of a tourist taxi driver. The High Court enhanced the loss of dependency compensation from Rs. 2,68,500 to Rs. 2,94,500 by adjusting the deceased's monthly income and increasing awards for love and affection and consortium.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 56,000 with interest granted; Tribunal award modified.

Prameela Vs T.B.Babu — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 74 of 2006()

¶7

--------------------OPMV.3911/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶8

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS - CLAIMANTS 1 TO 9 IN OP(MV):3911/96:

¶9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶10

1. PRAMEELA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. LATE ANANTHAN,

¶11

2. AJAY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE ANANTHAN,

¶12

3. AJITHA, AGED 26 YEARS,D/O. LATE ANANTHAN,

¶13

4. CHANDU, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDAN (DIED).

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUTTUNGAL PARAMBIL, VIII/993, R.G. PAI ROAD, KOOVAPADAM, COCHIN-2.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU.

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):3911/96:

¶17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. T.B. BABU, THOTTUPURA HOUSE, KANJANI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

2. JOSEPH,KUNNATH HOUSE, ERAVA, THRISSUR.

¶19

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS REGL. MANAGER, REGL. OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35.

¶20

4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS REGL.MANAGER, REGL. OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35.

¶21

R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY

¶22

R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Kss

¶25

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

¶26

=================

¶27

M.A.C.A.No. 74 of 2006

¶28

================= Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Barkath Ali, J.

¶31

Appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.3911/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. They are the wife, children and father of Ananthan who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated June 21, 2004 awarding a compensation of ` 2,68,500/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of Ananthan in that accident.

¶32

The accident occurred on February 29, 1996 near Chettuva Bridge on NH 47. While deceased Ananthan was driving a car bearing registration No.KCE 2345, it collided head on with a lorry bearing registration No.KL-8/G 826, as a result of which Anandan and the travellers in the car sustained serious injuries. Ananthan and one of the travellers succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. Alleging negligence of the second respondent, the driver of

¶33

¶34

MACA 74/2006

¶35

the offending lorry, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of ` 5,00,000/-.

¶36

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending lorry, remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, insurer of the offending lorry, filed a written statement admitting the policy but attributed negligence to the driver of the car. The fourth respondent, the insurer of the car, filed a written statement admitting the policy but contended that the accident occurred solely due to negligence of the second respondent.

¶37

This O.P. was tried along with other O.Ps. filed by

¶38

the legal heirs of one of the deceased and other injured persons and a common award was passed. PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts. A1 to A40 were marked on the side of the claimants. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of ` 2,68,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The claimants have come up in appeal challenging the quantum of

¶39

MACA 74/2006 3

¶40

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶41

Heard the counsel for the claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Companies.

¶42

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, driver of the offending lorry, and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident are not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶43

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶44

`2,68,500/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as

¶45

under:-

¶46

Transportation	:	` 2,000
Pain and suffering	:	` 7,500
Loss of consortium	:	` 10,000
Loss of love and affection	:	` 10,000
Funeral expenses	:	` 2,500
Loss of estate	:	` 2,500
Loss of dependency	:	`2,34,000
		------------------
Total	:	` 2,68,500 ========

¶47

MACA 74/2006

¶48

¶49

The counsel for the appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium.

¶50

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as 2,250/- and after deducting 1/3<sup>rd</sup> for his personal expenses, balance amount of 1,500/- was taken as his monthly contribution to his family, which comes to 18,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged 47 at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 13 and awarded a compensation of 2,34,000/- for the loss of dependency. The deceased was a Tourist Taxi Driver earning 3,500/- per month, according to the claimants. PW2 is the proprietor of Anand Travels under whom he was working. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at2,500/-, which comes to 30,000/per annum. After deducting 1/3<sup>rd</sup> for his personal expenses, balance amount of 20,000/- can be taken as his annual

¶51

MACA 74/2006 5

¶52

contribution to his family. Multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable. Thus, calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of 2,60,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled an additional compensation of 26,000/- on this count.

¶53

The Tribunal awarded 10,000/- for the loss of love and affection and 10,000/- for loss of consortium, which appear to be very low. Having regard to the age of the deceased and the claimants, we feel that a compensation of 30,000/- for loss of love and affection and 20,000/- for loss of consortium would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore,we are not disturbing the same. Regarding the apportionment of the compensation amount and disbursement of the same, the direction of the Tribunal will stand.

¶54

In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of ` 56,000/- with interest @

¶55

MACA 74/2006

¶56

¶57

7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending lorry shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

¶58

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶59

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

¶60

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

¶61

mn.

Prameela v. T.B.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prameela v. T.B.Babu

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

Dakshayani K. Vs P.Kunhiraman

Sunny Vs P.K.Ayoob

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Vs Hindustan Univer Limited

B.Vijayaprasad Vs Anil

Arikkeerath Narayani Amma Vs Mattayi Mohammed

Hariprasad Vs K.Devadas