Sheeba and Others vs P. Balakrishnan Nair and Another

M.L. Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in O.P.(MV) No. 2517 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The case of the petitioners in the O.P.(MV) is as follows:

On 18th June, 2001 at about 3.15 p.m., while deceased Somanathan was riding his scooter bearing Registration No. KL-11/B 477 from east to west along the Medical College road, a bus bearing Registration No. KL-11/C 8647 came from the rear side and dashed against the Scooter. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He died on the same day while undergoing treatment in Medical College Hospital. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. The first respondent is the owner of the bus and the second respondent is the insurer. The first petitioner is the widow, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased Somanathan, the 4th petitioner is his father and 5th petitioner is his mother. They claimed Rs. 12,00,000 as compensation.

The second respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the bus and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced from both sides. Exts. A1 to A11 were marked. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,78,916 to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from the respondents and the second respondent was directed to pay the amount as the insurer. Out of the compensation awarded, Rs. 50,000 each with proportionate interest was ordered to be paid to the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 and the balance amount was ordered to be apportioned among petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners filed this appeal.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded is very low and that the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the award.

The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

Ext. A6 is the copy of the first page of SSLC book showing that the date of birth of the deceased is 31st May, 1961. The accident occurred on 18th June, 2001. The deceased was a Police Constable aged 40 years at the time of accident and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 5,972. Out of that monthly income, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and ''16'' was taken as the multiplier. The Tribunal assessed the compensation for loss of dependency as Rs. 7,64,416. There is no dispute that the deceased had a permanent job in the Kerala Police. He was bound to get regular increments and his future career would have progressed with time. In view of the decision reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , and in view of the fact that the deceased was aged 40 years, 30% of the monthly income has to be added towards future prospects, and the monthly salary of the deceased after adding future prospects is taken as Rs. 7,763 (5972 + 1791). The deceased had left behind five dependents. Following the judgment in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra), the personal expenses of the deceased is reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th. The Tribunal took ''16'' as the multiplier. Calculating on that basis, the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 11,17,872 (7763 x 12 x 3 x 16/4) as compensation for loss of dependency instead of Rs. 7,64,416 awarded by the Tribunal. At the time of death of her husband, the first petitioner was aged only 30 years. Therefore, we award Rs. 25,000 as compensation for loss of consortium in the place of Rs. 10,000 awarded by the Tribunal. Due to the death of Somanathan, the minor petitioners have lost the love and affection of their father. Since no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under this head, we award 30,000 towards compensation for loss of love and affection. Due to the accident, Somanathan died on the same day. We award Rs. 10,000 towards compensation for pain and suffering. Thus, in total, the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 4,08,456 as additional compensation. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the petitioners are allowed to realise an additional compensation of Rs. 4,08,456 together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from the respondents and the second respondent is directed to deposit the amount within three months from this date. Out of the enhanced compensation awarded, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are allowed to receive Rs. 50,000 each and the balance amount will be apportioned among petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 equally. There is no order as to costs.