The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of claimants to enhanced compensation under various heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and loss of dependency, as determined by the relevant legal provisions and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

The above appeals have been filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in OP(MV) No.810 of 2003. M.A.C.A.No.1775 of 2013 has been filed by the Insurance Company which was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal and M.A.C.A.No.2081 of 2013 has been filed by the claimants before the Tribunal. The parties are referred to as claimants and Insurer.

2. The claimants are the parents and siblings of late Binu, who died in a motor accident. On 11.10.2002, the motorcycle driven by the deceased was hit by a car driven in a rash and negligent manner. The accident was denied by the Insurance Company. According to the insurer, no car was involved in the incident and the car, the driver and the eye witness were subsequently brought in, in order to sustain a claim petition. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. A sum of Rs.6,03,300/-, was awarded as compensation. The claimants have filed the appeal claiming enhancement. The insurer has filed the appeal challenging the entire award.

3. Heard the counsel for the claimants and the insurer.

4. According to the counsel for the insurer, no car was involved in the accident. It is submitted that even though the car was examined on 3.12.2002, no damage was noticed to the car. It is further contended that the Tribunal did not take into account the evidence tendered by PW2 and did not follow the decision in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal reported in [2011 (1) KLT 648]. Ext.A6 is the charge sheet which shows that the negligence is on the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer had not adduced any independent evidence to show that the deceased was negligent. In the absence of any documentary or oral evidence tendered on behalf of the insurer, the Tribunal ought to have held that there was no contributory negligence.

5. The counsel for the claimants submitted the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a High School Assistant in Malayalam, earning a salary of Rs.7,700/-per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased, instead of adopting 17 as the multiplier. The next contention of the counsel is that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing contributory negligence on the deceased at 50%. It is submitted that in the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal should have gone by the charge sheet and found that the driver of the car alone was negligent. It is pointed out that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.15,000/-each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. It is also submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection and awarding merely Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium are wrong. It was further argued that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for pain and suffering.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in [2020 (3) KHC 760] that in cases of death the compensation is to be granted for loss of estate, funeral expenses and for loss of dependency and under no other head. It has been specifically held that no amount can be granted as compensation under the head pain and sufferings to the legal representatives of the deceased. The counsel for the claimants submitted the judgment in Satinder Kaur (supra) does not specifically deal with the question whether the pain and sufferings that the deceased underwent between the accident and his death should be compensated. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, all rights available when the deceased was alive, would continue to be available to the legal representatives. Reference is made to Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The counsel on either side referred to the decisions reported in R.Ayyavu & Anr. v. Gopinathan Nair & Anr. [ILR