Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
Mariyumma W/o Late Abu – Appellant
Versus
Vijesh S/o Raveendran – Respondent
MACA No. 4516 of 2019
Decided On : 13-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. V. Binoy Ram.
For the Respondent: Sri. P. Jacob Mathew.
IMPORTANT POINTS
The magnitude of the ordeal may vary from case to case depending upon the nature of injuries sustained. In cases of instantaneous deaths also pain and suffering is invariably present, as in the case of survival for hours or days. In cases of instantaneous death as well as cases where the deceased was unconscious between the time of accident and the time of his death, some notional amount is payable under the head pain and suffering. A slightly higher amount can be awarded under this head, if the death is not instantaneous.
Headnote:
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 –Claiming Compensation-Enhancement-The compensation that has to be awarded to the surviving spouse towards spousal consortium; to the children of the deceased towards parental consortium; or to the parents of the deceased child towards filial consortium, is for loss of love and affection and such other matters. In such circumstances, once the surviving spouse is awarded compensation towards spousal consortium; or the children of the deceased are awarded compensation towards parental consortium; or the parents of the deceased child are awarded compensation towards filial consortium, they are not entitled for award of further compensation under the head loss love and affection, as it would result in duplication or overlapping of compensation under the relevant heads- The standards fixed in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out.
Statement of facts:
The appellants are the claimants -A claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Abu, husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 5, in a motor accident which occurred on 22.2.2013, while he was walking on the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a car -He sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- under various heads-The Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 2nd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,19,000/- together with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation, with proportionate cost. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio 30:10:10:10:10- Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.
Finding of the court:
The appellants/claimants are entitled for payment of an additional compensation of Rs. 42,250/- (Rupees forty two thousand two hundred and fifty only) (56,000 + 60,000 +1,250) - (10,000 + 35,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, excluding the period of delay of 843 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 27.1.2020, subject to the condition that in case enhanced compensation is awarded, the appellants will not be entitled to interest for the said amount for the period of delay.
Result: Appeal is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 338 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Abu, husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 5, in a motor accident which occurred on 22.2.2013, while he was walking on the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a car bearing registration No. KL-55/K-7742 owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- under various heads.
2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner-cum-driver of the car remained absent and he was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the car involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimants. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.
4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 2nd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,19,000/- together with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation, with proportionate cost. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio 30:10:10:10:10.
5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent insurer.
7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants/ claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads.
8. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier.
9. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of just compensation and the sa
