Janu vs Sathyan

Johnson John, J.

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P (MV) No. 740 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara and they are challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads as inadequate.

The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Kandan, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 8-5-2016. According to the petitioners while the deceased was walking through the side of the road, motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the deceased and thereby he sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 8-6-2016.

Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the petitioners and Ext.B1 marked from the side of the 3rd respondent.

After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,11,700/- to the petitioners.

Heard   both   sides   and   perused   the records.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and the same is on the lower side. According to the appellants the deceased was aged 60 years and was working as a coolie and earning Rs.750/- per day.

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/-each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.10,500/-. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident can be fixed as Rs.10,500/-.

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in case of a self-employed person, an addition of 10% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was between 50 to 60 years.

The Tribunal accepted 9 as the multiplier applicable. The claim petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased and the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the Tribunal deducted 50% of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and as per the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], only 1/3rd can be deducted in this case towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus while reassessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.8,31,600/- [(10,500 + 10%) x 2/3 x 12 x 9).

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) would show that the reasonable amount payable on conventional heads namely Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10% in every three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak & Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above metric awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- towards Loss of Consortium and Rs.18,150/- each towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/- each and the petitioners will also be entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards Loss of Consortium. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriram General Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat (2023 KHC Online 7244) shows that the compensation under the heads of Loss of Love and Affection and Loss of Consortium cannot be granted to each legal representative of the deceased and in view of the said position, the petitioners are not entitled for a separate amount towards Loss of Love and Affection.

In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format herein below :

Sl. No

Particulars

Compensation  awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)

Final      Amount Payable (Rs.)

1

Compensation of dependency

for

loss

415800

831600

2

Transport to hospital

5000

5000

3

Damage to clothings

1000

1000

4

Pain and sufferings

25000

25000

5

Loss of love & affection

50000

Nil

6

Funeral Expenses

15000

18150

7

Loss of Consortium

40000

48400

8

Loss of Estate

15000

18150

9

Treatment  and  medical expenses

17888

17888

10

Extra   nourishment   & bystander

27000

27000

Total Amount Payable

611688

992188

In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the appellants/petitioners are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.9,92,188/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs from the respondents. The third respondent/Insurance company shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.