Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5467
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SOPHY THOMAS, J
SUDINA – Appellant
Versus
MR.P.J.XAVIER – Respondent
MACA/2111/2012
SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP, SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
Compensation for loss of dependency must be calculated based on established precedents and proper consideration of the victim's income, living circumstances, and the impact of the loss on dependents.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Relevant Provisions of Law - The court addressed compensation under various heads, applying principles established in precedents to enhance compensation for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium while deducting an inappropriate award for pain and suffering.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appeal for enhanced compensation following a fatal motorcycle accident involving the deceased and his family, leading to serious injuries and the death of the husband, with claims filed by the wife and child for inadequate compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Tribunal's awards for loss of dependency and other compensatory heads were inadequate and thus enhanced these amounts based on applicable legal precedents, emphasizing the need for fair compensation in light of the severity of the injuries and loss suffered.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate considering the nature of the injuries and losses incurred by the claimants as a result of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied judicial precedents to determine appropriate compensation levels, factoring in notional income, loss of dependency, and applicable multipliers, while correcting the Tribunal's miscalculations.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed with enhanced compensation totaling Rs.6,20,500 for the first appellant and Rs.77,500 for the second appellant.
J U D G M E N T
These appeals have been preferred by the claimants in OP (MV) Nos.456 of 2011 and 457 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, assailing the impugned awards on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. On 10.10.2010 at about 9.30 p.m, while Sri.Jyothi Basu was riding his motorcycle carrying his wife and child on its pillion seat through Kacheripady junction, Ernakulam, KL- 7/AD 6705 motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their motorcycle and they were thrown down on the road and they suffered serious injuries. The husband Sri.Jyothi Basu succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. The wife Smt.Sudina, who was carrying for two months, sustained injuries in the accident and she had to abort her pregnancy because of the injuries suffered in the accident.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the rider, 3rd respondent is the insured and 4th respondent is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. The accident and policy of the offending motorcycle are not in dispute.
MACA No.2355 of 2012
4. The wife and child of the deceased Sri.Jyothi Basu are the appellants herein and according to them, the learned Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only Rs.6,24,500/- against their claim of Rs.10 lakh.
5. According to the appellants, Sri.Jyothi Basu was 40 years old, working as a Supervisor in M/s.Roofco Builders and Developers, Kaloor, earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as on the date of accident. PW1, the Accounts Manager of that firm deposed that, Sri.Jyothi Basu was a permanent employee earning monthly income of Rs.7,700/- + weekly petrol allowance of Rs.500/-. Learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.5,000/- finding that, Exts.A8 and A9 documents produced by PW1 were not acceptable. But, even going by the decisionRamchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited ( AIR 2011 SC 2951 ), as a 40 year old man, in the year 2010, he was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.7,500/-. Going by the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others ( AIR 2017 SC 5157 ), towards future prospects, he was eligible for 25% addition as he was in the age group of 40-50, employed in private sector. So, his monthly income could have been taken as Rs.9,375/- for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. Since he was having two dependents, 1/3rd had to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the balance income to be taken into account was Rs.6,250/-. The multiplier applicable was 15 as he was in the age group of 36- 40. So, loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.11,25,000/-(6250x12x15). The appellants were already awarded Rs.5,60,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. So, they are eligible to get the difference of Rs.5,65,000/- as enhanced compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
6. Towards funeral expenses, the appellants were awarded only Rs.7,500/-. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, they are eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So, the appellants are entitled to get the balance Rs.7,500/- as enhanced compensation towards funeral expenses.
7. Towards loss of estate, nothing was given by the Tribunal. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited supra , they are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- and that has to be awarded.
8. Towards loss of consortium, the appellants, who are the wife and child, are eligible to get Rs.44,000/- each amounting to Rs.88,000/- in total going by Pranay Sethi's case cited supra. In that event, Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and consortium has to be deducted. So, the appellants are entitled to get the difference of Rs.38,000/- as enhanced compensation for loss of consortium.
9. The appellants were awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. This being a death case, the claimants are not entitled to get any amount as compensation for pain and suffering and so, Rs.5,000/-
awarded by the Tribuna
