Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 63557
KERALA HIGH COURT
A., J
Manju Kuruvila and Others v. Sunith Kumar Fenn and Another
OP (MV) No. 298 of 2001
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Names Not Available]
For the Respondents: [Names Not Available]
The court underscores the principle of 'just compensation' as essential in determining motor accident claims, guided by fairness and equity.
Headnote:The Supreme Court in relevant judgments has established that 'just compensation' for motor vehicle accident claims must be determined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, focusing on fairness and equity. The Tribunal's initial award was deemed inadequate, prompting a reassessment of figures, including a corrected salary, future prospects, and multiplier method for dependants. The final verdict enhanced the compensation significantly. The appeal allows for a revised amount with stipulated interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants filed a compensation case for a death resulting from a motor accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. initial tribunal award deemed insufficient, prompting an appeal. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. 'just compensation' principles established by the supreme court are foundational. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. salary calculations and future prospects corrected in light of established legal principles. (Para 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. final compensation amounts modified and interest rate fixed based on legal precedents. (Para 24 , 26 , 28) |
1. The appellants are the claimants in OP (MV) No. 298 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvanantha - puram. The appellants and Pennamma Kuruvila had filed the claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of K.K. Kuruvila in a motor accident on 15.6.2000. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigious status in the appeal.
2. It was the case of the appellants and Pennamma Kuruvila before the Tribunal that the deceased K.K. Kuruvila, the husband of the appellant No. 1, father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of Pennamma Kuruvila, while travelling in a car bearing registration No. KL 01 - S 1771, which was owned and driven by the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, collided with Tempo bearing registration No. KL 01 - R 235, owned by the respondent No. 3 and insured with the respondent No. 4 in OP (MV) No. 298 of 2001, and autorickshaw bearing registration No. KCT 9753, owned by the respondent No. 5 and insured with the respondent No. 6 in Op (MV) No. 298 of 2001, on Thiruvallom - Kovalam Bye - pass Road. The driver of the car lost control and it fell into a ditch. K.K. Kuruvila instantaneously succumbed to the injuries. In the accident, passengers in three vehicles sustained injuries, and another passenger named Sreekumar also lost his life.
3. The appellants along with Pennamma Kuruvila filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming a total amount of Rs. 1,23,73,200 as compensation, under various heads, which was limited to Rs. 60,00,000.
4. Respondent No. 2 entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy. However, the respondent No. 2 denied negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant.
5. The legal representatives of the deceased - Sreekumar and another injured filed OP (MV) Nos. 424 and 1568 of 2001. A lady claiming to be the wife of Sreekumar filed OP (MV) No. 68 of 2002.
6. During the pendency of the claim petition, Pennamma Kuruvila died. Her legal representatives were impleaded as supplementary petitioner Nos. 5 to 11.
7. The Tribunal consolidated the four claim petitions and jointly tried the same. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the claimants and Exhs. A1 to A37 were marked in evidence. Exhs. X1 to X1 (C) were marked as court exhibits.
8. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal by the impugned common award allowed OP (MV) No. 298 of 2001, in part, by permitting the appellants to realize an amount of Rs. 22,40,000 as compensation from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
9. The comparative table of compensation that was claimed by the appellants and that was awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:
10. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under the various heads mentioned above, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
12. On going through the records, it is seen that, assailing the common award passed in favour of the appellants, the respondent No. 2 - insurance company had filed MACA No. 173 of 2008 before this c
