Kerala High Court · 2012

BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- *1. O.K. KUTTAPPAN, S/O. KANDANKUTTY, OLLURPARAMBIL HOUSE, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. *(DELETED). * NAME OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 11/02/2010 IN I.A. NO.417/2010.

2. CHENTHAMARA, S/O. KANDAMUTHAN, ALLIKATTUPARAMBU VEEDU, N.S.S. COLLEGE P.O., NEMMARA (DRIVER OF BUS KRP 1674).

3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, I.G. TOWERS, NEAR BUS STAND, NEMMARA, CHITTUR TALUK (INSURER OF BUS KRP 1674). R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ --------------------------------------------- MACA No. 1331 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2012 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The legal heirs of a police man who lost his life in a road traffic accident, being his widow, minor daughter and aged mother, are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, under various heads.

2. Under the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,33,500/- under various heads. Towards the head of dependency, the appellants have been awarded a total amount of Rs.5,29,000/- (Rs.2,61,000/- + Rs.2,58,000/-). Towards other conventional heads, no separate compensation has been awarded. Instead, the tribunal has awarded lump sum amount of Rs.14,500/- towards general damages.

3. In this appeal various grounds are raised assailing what is described as the gross inadequacy of the compensation. We have heard the submissions of Shri.R.Manikantan, learned counsel for the M.A.C.A No.1331 of 2006 -:2:- appellant and also those of learned standing counsel for the insurance company. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyothi Kaul v. State of M.P (2000 (2) ACG 1368) Mr. Manikantan submitted that the tribunal was in error in fixing the dependency compensation by adopting two different multiplicands for two different parties during the period of eleven years, adopting as the multiplier.

4. According to Mr.Manikantan, uniform multiplicand should have been adopted, taking into account the prospects of the deceased in his carrier and also his prospects of securing employment, even after his retirement. According to the learned counsel, the practice of adopting two different multiplicands has been deprecated by Supreme Court in Jyothi Kaul's case (cited supra).

5. The action of the learned tribunal in awarding a lump sum of Rs.14,500/- towards various heads of general damages,came up for attack at the hands of Mr.Manikantan. According to him, separate awards should have been passed towards conventional heads such as pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. All these submissions of Mr.Manikantan were M.A.C.A No.1331 of 2006 -:3:- opposed by the learned standing counsel for the insurance company. According to the learned standing counsel, the tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and has not erred while formulating and following the principles for determining the compensation. It is the company which should be aggrieved so, submitted by the learned standing counsel.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. We cannot agree with Mr.Manikantan in his submission that it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Jyothi Kaul's case (cited supra) that under no circumstances, for dependency compensation, the two different multiplicands can be adopted for two different periods. The issue will have to be decided depending upon the facts of each case. In the instant case, we notice that the deceased had crossed the age of 51 years. He had only four more years of service. We find some force in the submission of Mr.Manikantan that the learned tribunal did not take into account the prospect of the deceased securing employment even after his retirement. Therefore, we feel that for the second stage of 89 months(and not 87 months as wrongly found by the learned tribunal). The M.A.C.A No.1331 of 2006 -:4:- multiplicand should have been taken as Rs.4,000/-. On recomputing the dependency compensation in that manner, it would be found that during the first stage of 43 months, the appellant will be entitled for Rs.2,58,000/-, the amount awarded by the tribunal itself. When the multiplicand for the second face 89 is changed, the appellant will be entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.44,500/-.

7. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned tribunal was in error in awarding lump sum amount of Rs.14,500/- towards various heads of general damages, and towards funeral expenses. According to us separate compensation should have been awarded for the conventional heads of damages.

8. Towards funeral expenses, we award to the appellant Rs.5,000/-. Towards pain and suffering we award to the appellant Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Towards loss of consortium we award to the appellant Rs.15,000/- as compensation. Towards love and affection we award to the appellant Rs.15,000/- as compensation. Thus, in total we award to the appellant Rs.54,500/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand five hundred only), M.A.C.A No.1331 of 2006 -:5:- over and above what is awarded by the tribunal. This will carry interest at the rate of 7.5%per annum till the date of payment. In the result, the Appeal is allowed as above. No Costs. Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE The figure “Rs.44,500/-” occurring in the last line of paragraph 6 (page 4) of the judgment dated 24/01/2012 is corrected and substituted as “` 89,000/-” and the figure and words “Rs.54,500/- (Rupees fifty four thousand five hundred only)” occurring in line 6 of paragraph 8 (page 4) are corrected and substituted as “` 1,14,500/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand and five hundred only)”. vide order dated 01/06/2012 in I.A 981/2012 in M.A.C.A 1331/2006. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)