IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that dual claims for dependency compensation are permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need for just compensation for multiple fatalities in a single accident.

JUDGMENT :

The order of this Court shall dispose of four appeals: Two appeals filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded, and two appeals preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Two intriguing questions arise for consideration of these appeals. Two claim petitions arising out of the same accident were tried together jointly. The son was driving a motorcycle and the father was a pillion rider. The son died on the date of the accident itself. The father succumbed to the injury after five days. The mother, wife and children of the son raised a claim for compensation. The wife, daughter-in-law, grandchildren and the daughter of the father claimed compensation in a separate application. First question is “whether the mother can claim compensation under loss of dependency for both her son and her husband”? Second question raised is “whether the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the deceased can claim loss of dependency on account of death of grandfather?”.

3. Succinctly stated facts are as follows: On 10.03.2018 at 11 a.m, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-5/R-3330 was driven by one Mr.Sudheesh with his father Mr.Sasi as a pillion rider. When the motorcycle reached Chalakudy – Pudukkad public road near Kodakara flyover, a goods carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-32/B-9507 was parked without any precautions, warnings or any signals, resulting in the motorcycle hitting the rear side of the goods carriage, and both the rider and the pillion rider were thrown off. The rider Mr.Sudheesh succumbed to the injury on the same date i.e. 10.03.2018, whereas Mr.Sasi, the father, expired on 15.03.2018, after five days.

4. Smt.Lalitha, the wife of the deceased Sasi, along with their daughter Smt.Sumita, daughter-in-law Smt.Sruthy, and her two grandchildren, filed O.P.(MV)No. 628/2018. The legal heirs of the deceased Sudheesh, namely his wife, two children and the mother Smt.Lalitha filed O.P. (MV)No.627/2018.

5. The claimants contended that the deceased Sudheesh was an Electrician by profession and was working abroad with a monthly salary of 2,500 Dirhams. He returned back to his native place and was doing work with a monthly salary of Rs.24,000/-. Similarly, the father of Sudheesh was a manual labourer who had a visa valid until 2019, but it was cancelled. He came back and was working as a manual labourer earning a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-.

6. The Insurance Company appeared and resisted the claim vehemently. The primary contention raised by the Insurance Company was that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider and that the vehicle was parked in a left-hand corner of the flyover, having a three lane traffic. The Insurance Company relied on Ext.B2 Location Sketch and contended that, had the rider of the vehicle taken precaution, the accident could have been averted.

7. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, found that based on Ext.A2 Final Report, the negligence was on the driver of the offending vehicle and thus, rejected the claim of the Insurance Company. As regards the claim of the claimants that deceased Sudheesh was working as an Electrician drawing a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-, the Tribunal found that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants and thus proceeded to fix the income notionally at Rs.12,000/-. In case of late Sasi, the husband of the claimant Smt Lalitha, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- and proceeded to consider the claim for compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that, when the Tribunal considered the claim on account of death of Mr.Sasi, the Tribunal excluded the daughter-in-law and the grandchildren from the purview of dependency of her father-in-law and granted the benefit of dependency only to the wife. On analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal found entitlement of the claimants for compensation and granted the compensation as follows: