Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J.
P.O.Meera, W/O Late M.C.Madhavan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Ananda P.Naik, S/O.Pokka And Ors. – Respondents
MACA NO. 2476, 2481, 2483 of 2008
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 141 - Motor Vehicle Act,1988 – Section 166 - Indian Majority Act, 1875 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005 – Accident – Death / fatal injuries - Seeking compensation for death of deceased and for damages caused to car – Whether finding of contributory negligence attribute against decased is sustainable in law - Whether multiplier of 11 adopted by Tribunal in O.P (MV) is correct or not - Whether quantum of compensation fixed in O.P (MVs) is reasonable and just - Deceased, his wife and their two daughters were residents of Gujarat - Car was manoeuvring a steep gradient at Nagar Cross, a van which was moving downhill - first respondent in a negligent manner and at excessive speed, collided with the car – Deceased and one of his daughter - Suffered fatal injuries and breathed their last before they reached Hospital. The car got extensively damaged. Fortuitously, Deceased’s wife and daughter survived unscathed.
Finding of the court:
Court is bound to follow the law declared by Honourable Supreme Court as enshrined under Article 141 of Constitution of India and not to give a different interpretation or tinker with well settled enunciation - Compensation for loss of dependency has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of Madhavan - Compensation is awarded under head 'loss of consortium', no amount shall be awarded under head 'loss of love and affection', as it would amount to duplication of compensation - Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.2,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. Therefore, court award appellants a further amount of Rs.14,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, a further amount of Rs.14,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and a further amount of Rs.73,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ - Petitioners have claimed an amount damages to the car - Awarded an amount of deducted 50% towards contributory negligence of deceased - PW3 has also fixed the salvage value was not taken note by Tribunal - Appellants are only entitled - Petitioners themselves have relied on Ext A21 survey report - Appellants are entitled to a total amount after setting aside finding of contributory negligence, with interest and cost as mentioned in operative portion of judgment.
Result: Appeals are allowed
JUDGMENT :
As the appeals arise out of the common award in O.P (MV) Nos.1055, 1056, and 1057 of 2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery (in short 'Tribunal'), they are being decided together. The parties are, wherever the context so requires and for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in O.P (MV) 1056/2002.
Factual Matrix
2. The compendious background facts are :
Madhavan, his wife ?Meera and their two daughters Latha and Smitha were residents of Gujarat. They decided to relocate to their native place at Mattannur in Kannur District. The four of them left from Gujarat to Mattannur in a Car driven by Madhavan. Little did they know it was their last journey together! On 8.7.2001, at about 6.45 p.m., while the car was manoeuvring a steep gradient at Nagar Cross, Kumta Taluk, Karnataka State, a van which was moving downhill, from Ankola to Kumta, driven by the first respondent in a negligent manner and at excessive speed, collided with the car. Madhavan and Latha suffered fatal injuries and breathed their last before they reached the Kumta Taluk Hospital. The car got extensively damaged. Fortuitously, Meera and Smitha survived unscathed.
3. In the above state of affairs, Meera, Smitha and the mother of Madhavan ?Janaki (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') filed O.P (MV) Nos.1056 and 1055 of 2002 before the Tribunal, against the driver, owner, insurer of the van and the insurer of the car (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents'), seeking compensation for the death of Madhavan and for the damages caused to the car. Meera also filed O.P (MV) No.1057 of 2002 against the respondents, seeking compensation for the death of her daughter Latha.
O.P (MV) No.1056 of 2002 (MACA No.2481 of 2008)
4. The petitioners have filed the claim petition against the respondents, seeking an amount of Rs.29,20,000/- as compensation for the death of Madhavan. They have, inter-alia, pleaded that Madhavan was aged 50 years at the time of the accident/death. He was a healthy and able bodied person. He was an Engineer by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. The appellants were the dependents of the deceased. They have no independent income of their own. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by the first respondent. The van bearing registration No.KA.30/630 was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. The car was insured with the fourth respondent. The respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioners the compensation amount.
O.P (MV) No. 1055 of 2002 (MACA No.2476 of 2008)
5. The petitioners have filed the claim petition against the respondents, reiterating the same pleadings in O.P. (MV) No.1056 of 2002, claiming an amount of Rs.60,000/-as damages caused to the Maruthi car bearing registration No.GBT/9744 belonging to Madhavan.
O.P (MV) No.1057 of 2002 (MACA No.2483 of 2008)
6. The second petitioner ?Meera has filed the claim petition against the respondents, on the same pleading as in O.P (MV) 1056 of 2002, claiming an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation for the death of Latha, who was a 17 year old student.
Defence of the respondents
7. The respondents 1 and 2 have not contested any of the claim petitions and have been set ex parte.
8. The third respondent – the insurer of the van has filed separate counter statements in three claim petitions. The third respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Madhavan, who attempted to overtake a rickshaw while moving uphill and the car collided against the van. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent; therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
9. The fourth respondent – insurer of the car ?has also filed separate written statements in the claim petitions stating that as the car was covered only by an
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence and the calculation of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Court emphasized 'just compensation' principles, adjusting compensation for loss of dependency and conventional heads, thereby enhancing the award significantly to reflect adequate and fair remunerat....
The judgment establishes that in motor accident claims, the correct application of multipliers based on the deceased's age and future income prospects is crucial for determining fair compensation, al....
The court reaffirmed that negligence in motor vehicle accidents is determined by preponderance of probabilities, and established that split multipliers for compensation calculations are erroneous.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
