Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, J.
A. Gopinathan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Afzal Basha, S/o. K. Maqbal & Ors. - Respondents
Maca.No.380 of 2010
Decided On : 09-03-2020
For the Appellant : Sri. P.V. Baby, Sri. A.N. Santhosh
For the Respondent: Sri. E.M. Joseph
IMPORTANT POINTS
The directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act- Section 166;; Constitution of India- Art. 141--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.
Statement of facts:
The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.570 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Vasantha, wife of the 1st appellant and mother of appellants 2 and 3, in a motor accident which occurred on 10.10.2004, while she was travelling on a scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/A-7804 ridden by her husband, the 1st appellant herein. At the place of accident, the scooter was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TN-33/E-2799, owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. In the accident, she sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,74,000/-under various heads, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee.
Finding of the court:
The appellants/claimants are entitled for payment of an additional compensation of Rs.4,58,350/-(Rupees four lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred and fifty only) [(3,35,600 + 12,000 + 30,000 + 75,000 + 10,000 + 750) – (5,000)] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The additional compensation granted in this appeal, excluding that granted to the 1st appellant as spousal consortium, that granted to appellants 2 and 3 under the head parental consortium, shall be apportioned among the appellants in the ratio 40:30:30.
Result: Appeal is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.570 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Vasantha, wife of the 1st appellant and mother of appellants 2 and 3, in a motor accident which occurred on 10.10.2004, while she was travelling on a scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/A-7804 ridden by her husband, the 1st appellant herein. At the place of accident, the scooter was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TN-33/E-2799, owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. In the accident, she sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,74,000/-under various heads, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee.
2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner-cum-driver of the lorry remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the scooter by the 1st claimant. The insurer contended further that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants and the 1st claimant was examined as PW1. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary 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 lorry by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/-(wrongly shown as 1,40,000/-in the award) together with interest at the rate 7% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation, with proportionate cost and directed the 2nd respondent insurer to satisfy the award.
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 v. 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.
