Sakunthala Janardhanan vs Simon John Chittilappilly House, Thrissur District 680001

Sophy Thomas, J

This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in OP (MV) No.571 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. They are challenging the impugned award for inadequacy of compensation.

The appellants are the wife and children of one Mr.Janardhanan who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 17.11.2005. Sri.Janardhanan, a 58 year old business man while riding his Scooty, was knocked down by KL-08/B 4950 bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Though he was rushed to Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur, on the next day, he succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of Sri.Janardhanan approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,92,450/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,86,100/-, and that is under challenge in this appeal.

The 1st respondent was the owner, 2nd respondent was the driver and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending bus.

The insurer is not disputing the death of Sri.Janardhanan in the accident occurred on 17.11.2005 involving KL-8/B 4950 bus. It is also not in dispute that the offending bus was validly insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident. But, according to the 3rd respondent, there was violation of the policy conditions since the 2nd respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of accident.

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.

According to the appellants, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is too low. Though he claimed Rs.4 lakh, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,16,000/-, fixing notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was a 58 year old business man earning monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal did not accept the income of the deceased as stated by the claimants, and it could not be justified according to them. Since there was no evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed his income notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. Even going by Ramchandrappa vs. Manager,  Royal  Sundaram  Alliance  Insurance  Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951), in the year 2005, his income would have been fixed at Rs.5,000/-, and he was eligible to get addition of 10% towards future prospects since he was aged below 60, without a permanent job. So, his notional income would have been fixed at Rs.5,500/- per month. On deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the multiplicant would have been fixed as Rs.3,666/-. Since he was aged 58, the multiplier would be 9. So the compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.3,95,928/- (3666x12x9). Rs.2,16,000/- was already awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'. So, the appellants are entitled to get the balance Rs.1,79,928/- as enhanced compensation towards loss of dependency.

Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the appellants were awarded only Rs.5,000/- each. Going by the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], they are eligible to get Rs.15,000/- each under the head funeral expenses and loss of estate. So, they are eligible to get enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- each under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, the appellants were awarded Rs.40,000/- in total. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, the wife and children of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each including 10% addition for the delay of three years, amounting to Rs.1,32,000/- in total. After deducing Rs.40,000/- already awarded, they are eligible to get enhanced compensation of Rs.92,000/- under the head loss of spousal and filial consortium.

Towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The legal heirs are not entitled to get compensation for pain and sufferings of the deceased and so, that amount has to be deducted from the award amount.

Head of claim

(1)

Amount awarded by the Tribunal (2)

Amount awarded in appeal

(3)

Amounts deducted in appeal

(4)

Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation (5)

Loss of dependency

Rs.2,16,000/-

Rs.3,95,928/-

Rs.1,79,928/-

Funeral expenses

Rs.5,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.10,000/-

Loss of estate

Rs.5000/-

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.10,000/-

Loss of love and affection & loss of consortium

Rs.40,000/-

1,32,000/-

Rs.92,000/-

Pain and sufferings

Rs.10,000/-

-

Rs.10,000/-

-

Total

Rs.10,000/-

Rs.2,91,928/-

Enhanced compensation (291928-10000)

Rs.2,81,928/-

In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.2,81,928/- (179928+10000+ 10000+92000-10000).

The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellants 1 to 3 in the ratio 50:25:25 with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The 3rd respondent/insurer is entitled to recover the amount so deposited from the 1st respondent-owner and his assets as there was violation of the policy conditions

This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.