Point of Law: Victim who died in a motor accident are entitled to claim compensation under Section 2 of Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1977 for personal injuries.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 05.06.2012 in O.P.(M.V) No.974/2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

3. The appellants are the legal heirs of one Mrs.Radhamma who died at the age of 53 years following the fatal injuries sustained by her in a motor accident occurred at 06.00 pm on 12.03.2006. As per the allegations in the Original Petition, the motor accident was occurred at Ottupara situated in Thrissur-Shoranur road when she was knocked down by a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-8/AD 1677 which was ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner. She was taken to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur and while undergoing treatment there, she succumbed to the injuries sustained. Alleging that the motor accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the Motorcycle by its rider who was also its registered owner at the relevant time, the Original Petition was filed seeking for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-as compensation. The owner cum rider and the insurer of the Motorcycle were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition.

4. 1st and 2nd respondents entered appearance on notice being served on them from the Tribunal. Written statement was filed by the 1st respondent contending that death of the victim can only be taken as the consequence of age related ailments, she being very old at the relevant time. The contentions raised furthermore that since the 1st respondent was riding the Motorcycle carefully and was found not guilty in the criminal case registered for the motor accident and was acquitted after trial, he cannot be made liable for causing the motor accident. The old lady has caused the motor accident to happen by her own negligence. Admittedly, the Motorcycle involved in the motor accident was validly insured with the 2nd respondent.

5. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the petitioners and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the respondents in evidence. Based on those evidence, the Tribunal found the rider of the Motorcycle negligent and responsible for causing the motor accident. The Tribunal also arrived at Rs.3,43,500/-as the compensation payable and the 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to deposit the above sum with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realization alongwith proportionate cost, in favour of the petitioners.

6. The main challenge raised in the appeal on hand is against the quantum stood awarded as compensation under various heads. The monthly income taken consideration of by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/-for calculation of compensation is alleged as too low. The petitioner allegedly was a construction worker having Rs.6,000/-as monthly income at the relevant time of the motor accident. The learned counsel canvassed for fixation of the monthly income having due regard to that fixed by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. The learned counsel for the petitioners also canvassed for consideration of loss of future prospects of the lady on account of her untimely death in the motor accident. The learned counsel also canvassed for modification of the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads in tune with the directions of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)].

7. On the strength of the dictum in Jaya and others vs. Shaji and others [2014 ACJ 1378], the learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed for maintaining the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. It was contended on the basis of the dictum in the above case that the legal representatives of the victim who di