Suja Rani.S.T vs Manibhushan.B.,Panmamthala Veedu

,,,

C.S.Dias, J",,,

The appellants were the petitioners in OP(MV)No.983 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The respondents",,,

in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. Pursuant to the orders of this Court on 30.03.2021 in I.A.No. 1 of 2021, the 1st respondent",,,

has been deleted from the party array.,,,

The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of",,,

Pradeep Kumar (deceased) - the husband of the 1st appellant, the father of the appellants 2 and 3 and son of appellants 4 and 5.",,,

The concise case of the appellants in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal, is : on 22.05.2003 while the deceased was",,,

riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 01/Z 6650 with his wife - 1st appellant, who was a pillion rider, along the Kanjiramkulam â€"",,,

Vazhimukku public road, when they reached Balaramapuram, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL 01/ G 9912 (offending vehicle) driven in a",,,

rash and negligent manner hit on the rear portion of the motorcycle. The deceased and his wife were thrown off the road and sustained serious,,,

injuries. They were rushed to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 24.05.2003. The",,,

deceased was a Police Constable and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6449/-. The appellants were the dependants of the deceased. The offending,,,

vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent was the insurer of the motorcycle. The appellants,,,

claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-",,,

The 1st respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex-parte.,,,

The 2nd respondent filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the compensation claimed was excessive. However, the 2nd respondent",,,

admitted that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy. It was also contended that the deceased was riding his motorcycle in a rash and,,,

negligent manner. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation.",,,

The 1st appellant also filed OP(MV)No.993 of 2003 before the same Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by her.,,,

The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the original petitions.,,,

The appellants marked Exts.A1 to A10 in evidence. The 2nd respondent marked Ext.B1 and B2 in evidence.,,,

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by a common award allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants, by",,,

directing the 2nd respondent to pay the appellants an amount of Rs.8,23,640/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of",,,

petition till the date of realisation.,,,

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners/appellants are in appeal.",,,

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.,,,

The sole question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and,,,

just?,,,

A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], has held that",,,

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of",,,

fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of",,,

fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability.",,,

Ext.A4  charge-sheet  filed  by  the Balaramapuram police after investigation substantiates that the accident was caused solely,,,

due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Undisputedly, the offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured",,,

with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is the 2nd respondent who is liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent arising out of the accident.",,,

Ext.A3 postmortem certificate proves that the deceased lost his life on 24.05.2003 on account of the accident. The appellants claimed to be the,,,

wife, children and parents of the deceased. This aspect is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, it is only to be accepted that the appellants are",,,

the dependants of the deceased.,,,

Notional income,,,

The appellants had contended that the deceased was a Police Constable and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,449/-, as reflected in Ext.A5",,,

salary certificate. However, the Tribunal taking into account that an amount Rs.505/- was paid as special allowance, fixed the monthly salary of the",,,

deceased at Rs.5,944/-. The above assessment made by the Tribunal is correct and in accordance with law laid down in Kalpanaraj and others v.",,,

Tamil Nadu Road Transport Corporation [2015 (2) SCC 764]. Hence, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal with respect to the income of the",,,

deceased.,,,

Multiplier,,,

The Tribunal has fixed the multiplier at '15'. In the light of the law laid down in Sarala Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others,,,

[(2010) 2 KLT 802] and the Pranay Sethi (spura) the relevant multiplier is '14'. Hence, I re-fix the multiplier at '14'.",,,

Personal living expenses,,,

On going through the impugned award it is seen that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the total compensation for 'loss of dependency' as the,,,

'personal living expenses' of the deceased. As the appellants are five in number and were dependants of the deceased, in the light of the law laid down",,,

in Sarala Varma (supra), only 1/4th of the amount can be deducted towards 'personal living expenses' of the deceased. Hence, I deduct 1/4th of the",,,

compensation towards 'loss of dependency' as 'personal living expenses' of the deceased.,,,

Future prospects,,,

In the light of the law laid down in Sarala Varma and Pranay Sethi (supra) and considering the fact that the deceased was 41 years at the time of,,,

accident, the appellants are entitled for future prospects at 30%.",,,

Loss due to dependency with future prospects,,,

Sl.No.,Heads of claim,"Amount awarded

by the Tribunal (in

rupees)","Amounts

modified and

recalculated by

this Court

1,Transport to hospital,"1,000/-","1,000/-

2,Funeral expenses,"8,000/-","15,000/-

3,Damage to clothing,"1,000/-","1,000/-

4,Love and affection,"45,000/-",nil

5,Loss of estate,"10,000/-","15,000/-

6,Loss of consortium,"20,000/-","2,00,000/-

7,Loss of dependency with future prospects,"7,13,340/-","9,73,627/-

8,Bye-stander expenses,300,300

,,"8,23,640/-","12,05,927