Partly allowed

Sreevidhya v. K.P.Jose

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013MACA/1400/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to the family of a deceased bar-tender in a motor accident. The court corrected notional income, adjusted dependency deductions, and increased awards for pain and sufferings, loss of love and affection, and loss of consortium based on the minors' age and circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.2,14,000 granted with 9% interest; ordered to be deposited by the insurer within two months.

Sreevidhya Vs K.P.Jose — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 1400 of 2010 (C)

¶7

IN OP(MV) 1551/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1. SREEVIDHYA, W/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN,MALLIAKKAL HOUSE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 61, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, MALLIAKKAL HOUSE, RAJEEV NAGAR, PATTALAKKUNU, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. DEVAKI, AGED 54, W/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MALLIAKKAL HOUSE, RAJEEV NAGAR, PATTALAKKUNU, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4. PAVITHRA @ VENI, D/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN, RESIDING MALLIAKKAL HOUSE, RAJEEV NAGAR, PATTALAKKUNU MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON.

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. K.P.JOSE, S/O. POULOSE, KOTTAKKLA HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLANNUR DEVASSY BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD R BY SRI.K.B.RAMANAND R BY SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR VARMA R BY SRI.A.R.GEORGE R BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE R BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rvs/

¶20

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶21

M.A.C.A. No.1400 of 2010

¶22

Dated this, the 6^th day of November 2013

¶23

Judgment

¶24

Siri Jagan, J.

¶25

The wife, father, mother and minor children of deceased Venugopalan, are the appellants in this appeal. Venugopalan died in an accident on 17.04.2005, caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle, owned by the first respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent. The appellants filed OP(MV) No.1551/05 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming compensation for the death of their breadwinner. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows :

¶26

MACA No.1400/10

¶27

¶28

*Head*	*Amount ₹*
*Loss of contribution &*
*dependency*	*432,000.00*
*Loss of love and affection*	*10,000.00*
*Pain and sufferings*	*5,000.00*
*Transportation &*
*funeral expenses*	*5,000.00*
*Loss of estate*	*10,000.00*
*Loss of consortium*	*10,000.00*
*Total*	472,000.00

¶29

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal, seeking enhanced compensation.

¶30

The appellants point out that the accident was on 17.04.2005 and the deceased was a 32 year old bar-tender, who was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as income. In order to prove the income and avocation, the appellants had produced Ext.A10 salary certificate, issued by his employer. But, the Tribunal refused to rely on the same and fixed a notional income of Rs.3,000/-, which is on the lower side, is the contention raised by the appellants. The second contention is that since there were four dependants, the Tribunal could have deducted only ¼^th for the personal expenses of

¶31

MACA No.1400/10 3

¶32

the deceased, whereas, actually, 1/3^rd was deducted. The appellants contend that the compensation for love and affection, pain and sufferings of the deceased and loss of consortium for the first appellant are all on the lower side. The appellants, therefore, seek enhancement of compensation under all heads.

¶33

We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance

¶34

company as well, who would argue for sustaining the award.

¶35

We have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶36

Taking into account the fact that the accident was in

¶37

the year 2005 and the deceased was 32 years old at that time and taking into account future prospects as well, we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, instead of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deduction for personal expenses should be only ¼^th , instead of 1/3^rd . But, at the same time, we note that the multiplier applicable to a 32 year old person is only 16 as per the Supreme Court decision in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 (SC), whereas, the Tribunal has adopted 18. Calculated on the basis of these parameters, the

¶38

MACA No.1400/10 4

¶39

appellants would be entitled to Rs.5,76,000/- (4000 x 12 x 16 x ¾), instead of Rs.4,32,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency. The difference would be Rs.1,44,000/-.

¶40

We are inclined to enhance the compensation for pain and sufferings of the deceased to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/awarded by the Tribunal. We are also inclined to enhance the compensation for loss of love and affection of appellants 2 to 4, especially, taking into account the fact that the fourth appellant was only a minor aged 28 days, at the time of death of her father, to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.10,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into account the fact that the first appellant was only 22 years old at the time of accident and the chances of a re-marriage are not very bright, we award Rs.60,000/- towards loss of consortium, instead of Rs.10,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,14,000/-, over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. The insurance company shall deposit this amount also within two months. This amount shall be divided

¶41

MACA No.1400/10

¶42

¶43

among the first appellant and the fourth appellant. The share of the fourth appellant shall be deposited in a Nationalised bank, drawing interest. The first appellant mother can withdraw the interest accruing on the deposit from time to time, for the benefit of the minor child.

¶44

With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of.

¶45

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶46

K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶47

sta

¶48

MACA No.1400/10 6

¶49

MACA No.1400/10 7

Sreevidhya v. K.P.Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreevidhya v. K.P.Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs the K.S.E.B and Another

Dhanesh Vs Subramanian

Bobby Francis Vs P.a.Mukundan

State of Kerala Vs Jayan

State of Kerala Vs Radhakumari

Thressiamma Vs Joseph Francis & Others