AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
C.S.Dias, J.",,,
The appellants were the petitioners in OP(MV) 800/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda. The respondents in the",,,
appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.,,,
The appellants had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Balan",,,
(deceased) the son of the first appellant and the brother of the appellants 2 to 6. It was their case that, on 8.1.2006, while the deceased was walking",,,
through the Thrissur-Ernakulam National Highway, a bus bearing registration No.KL-15/2496 (bus), driven by the second respondent in a negligent",,,
manner, hit the deceased. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and lost his life on the same day at the Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur. The bus was",,,
owned by the first respondent. The deceased was a Hotel employee and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The appellants were the dependents",,,
of the deceased. Hence, the appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.3,22,800/- from the respondents",,,
The second respondent did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte.,,,
The first respondent had filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. The first respondent contended that the accident,,,
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.,,,
The appellants produced and marked Exts A1 to A4 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.,,,
The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the appellants to recover from",,,
the first respondent an amount of Rs.80,000/- with interest and cost.",,,
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.",,,
Heard: Sri.P.V Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners and Sri.Alex Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the first",,,
respondent - owner.,,,
The sole point that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.,,,
Negligence and liability,,,
Ext A2 charge-sheet filed by the Koratty Police in crime No.20/2006 proves that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second,,,
respondent. Indisputably, the first respondent was the owner of the bus. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext A2 charge-",,,
sheet. Therefore, the first respondent is vicariously liable to pay the compensation amount arising out of the accident.",,,
Income,,,
The appellants had claimed that the deceased was a Hotel employee and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. For the want of materials, the",,,
Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-.",,,
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] has",,,
fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month.",,,
Following the yardstick in the aforecited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2006, I refix the notional monthly",,,
income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- as claimed in the claim petition.",,,
Multiplier,,,
The deceased was aged 49 years at the time of the accident/death. In the light of the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport,,,
Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the relevant multiplier to be adopted is '13'.",,,
Personal living expenses of the deceased,,,
It is undisputed that the deceased was a bachelor. In the light of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and National,,,
Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] one - half of the compensation has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the,,,
deceased.,,,
Future prospects,,,
Following the ratio in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), and considering the fact that the deceased was aged 49 years at the time of",,,
the accident, I hold that the appellants are entitled to future prospects @ 25%.",,,
Loss of dependency,,,
Taking into account the above mentioned factors, namely, the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, the multiplier at '13', future",,,
prospects @ 25% and after deducting one-half of the compensation towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, I refix the compensation",,,
for loss of dependency at Rs.2,92,500/-, instead of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.",,,
Conventional heads of claim,,,
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Clause (viii) of paragraph 61 of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for,,,
compensation under the conventional heads viz., funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/-",,,
respectively. It is also observed that the conventional heads of compensation have to be enhanced every three years by 10%.,,,
In N.Jayasree vs. Cholamandalam M.S, General Insurance Co Ltd. [2021 SCC Online SC 967] and Rasmita Biswal and others vs. The",,,
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd and another [2021 SCC Online SC 1193], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has for accidents that",,,
happened in the years 2011 and 2013, respectively, granted 10% escalation on the conventional heads, irrespective of the date of accident. Thus, it is",,,
to be interpreted and inferred that the escalation of 10% is to be awarded after three years from the pronouncement of the judgment in Pranay Sethi,,,
(supra), which was rendered in the year 2017, and not for accidents that occurred three years after 2017.",,,
In the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled",,,
SI. No,Head of claim,"Amount awarded by
the Tribunal (in rupees)","Amounts
modified and
recalculated by
this Court
1,Transport to hospital,"2,000/-","2,000/-
2,Funeral expenses,"3,000/-","16,500/-
3,Loss of consortium,Nil,"44,000/-
4,Loss of estate,Nil,"16,500/-
5,Loss of love and affection,"10,000/-",Nil
6,Loss of dependency,"60,000/-","2,92,500/-
7,Pain and suffering,"5,000/-",Nil
,Total,"80,000/-","3,71,500/-