M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Fathima and Others

Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the third respondent, Insurance Company in O.P. (M.V.) No. 88 of 2000 on the file of the M.A.C.T., North Paravoor. O.P. (M.V.) No. 88 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners 1 to 6 seeking compensation for the death of one Mr. Sidheek in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 3-9-1999 at about 8.30 A.M. Deceased Sidheek along with his brother-in-law, Aziz were standing in front of the Tea Shop of one Gireesh at Munambam junction on the right margin. At that time a bus bearing reg. no. KRK-7479 owned by the second respondent, driven by the first respondent came and hit the deceased and his brother-in-law. Both of them were thrown down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were taken to Government Hospital, North Paravoor and from there referred to Medicare Hospital, Kodungalloor. The deceased was referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. On the way at Panayikulam, Sidheek died. Petitioners 1 to 6 are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Sidheek. They claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation alleging the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Third respondent in that O.P. (M.V.) was the insurer of the bus.

Before the Claims Tribunal, respondent nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the bus and denying the negligence alleged against the driver of the bus. The other averments in the petition regarding age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed were also disputed. The widow of the deceased was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to 5 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the 3rd respondent, the certified copy of the policy was marked as Ext. B1. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the accident was due to the negligence of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,14,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents. The third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. The third respondent, Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.

When this appeal came up for admission, learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on the higher side, especially the compensation awarded under the head compensation for loss of income.

The Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation under various heads as follows:

When the first petitioner was examined as PW1, she deposed that the deceased was running a meat shop and he used to give Rs. 2,500/- per month, towards family expenses. But the Claims Tribunal took only Rs. 1,000/- as monthly contribution of the deceased towards family expenses and annual contribution was assessed as Rs. 12,000/- and took 17 as the suitable multiplier as the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Since the deceased was maintaining his family from the income from his employment, the monthly contribution of Rs. 1,000/- taken by the Tribunal towards family expenses is reasonable and suitable multiplier was taken based on the Second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. But the amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- was mistakenly described in the award as compensation for loss of income instead of compensation for loss of dependency. Immediately after the accident the deceased Sidheek was first taken to the Medi Care Hospital, Kodungallur and from there he was referred to Ernakulam Medical Centre, on the way he died. Therefore, Rs. 3,000/- awarded towards expenses for transportation and Rs. 2,500/- awarded towards medical expenses are reasonable. Due to the accident, the first petitioner lost her husband at her age of 30. Therefore, Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards compensation for loss of consortium is reasonable. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. Since the compensation is assessed by the Tribunal under the head compensation for loss of income, the respondents are not entitled to get further sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head compensation for dependency. But the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards compensation for loss of love and affection. Therefore that Rs. 30,000/- can be adjusted towards compensation for loss of love and affection. Therefore, we are of the view that the Claims Tribunal awarded only just and reasonable compensation and as such this Appeal is without any merits.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed in limine, as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs.