Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 376 (KER)

Thressia v. James

2003-06-10

A.LEKSHMIKUTTY, J.B.KOSHY

body2003
Judgment :- LEKSHMIKUTTY,J. Against the award passed in O.P. (MV) No.1656 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claimants filed this appeal. The appellants herein are the dependents of deceased V.I. Joseph who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.8.1992. On 16.8.1992, while the deceased V.I. Joseph was travelling as pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-7B/1644 driven by the first respondent through Chalakudy-Angamaly N.H. Road and when they reached at Karanyamparambu, lorry bearing registration No. MDM-799 driven by the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle and thereby the deceased sustained serious injuries. The injured undergoing treatment in L.F. Hospital. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles. AT the time of accident, the second respondent was the owner of the motor cycle and it was having valid insurance policy with the third respondent. The 4th respondent was the driver of the lorry and 5th respondent was the owner and 16th respondent was the insurance company which insured the lorry. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants for the death of deceased V.I. Joseph. AT the time of accident, the deceased was a practicing lawyer, aged about 36 and having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. He was a bachelor and claimants are the dependants of the deceased. An amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was calimed by them as compensation. Respondents 7 and 8 are brothers, the first appellant is the mother and appellants 2 and 3 are his unmarried elder sisters. On the side of the claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, Ext. B1 was marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. 2. The Tribunal after considering the evidence passed an award allowing the claimants to realize a compensation of Rs.1,17,500/- with interest and respondents 1 to 3 were mad ejointly and severally liable for the compensation awarred. 3. No apart of cross objection is filed by the respondents. Now the claimants challenge the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that deceased Joseph was a practicing lawyer. The monthly income of the deceased was stated as Rs.4,000/-. 3. No apart of cross objection is filed by the respondents. Now the claimants challenge the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that deceased Joseph was a practicing lawyer. The monthly income of the deceased was stated as Rs.4,000/-. To prove the income of the deceased, PW-1, the Senior Advocate of the deceased was examined. His evidence shows that the deceased Joseph was his junior Advocate. He was practicing from 1991 onwards as an independent lawyer and he was a promising Advocate and having a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The court below did not accept the evidence solely on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants. It is not possible to produce any documentary evidence unless the Advocate fee is received on receipts. Presumably, there is no such practice also. But the Tribunal fixed the national monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1.500/-. As per Ext. A9, S.S.L.C. Book of the deceased, he was 3.Years old at the time of death. 4. The evidence of PW-1 shows that the deceased was practicing independently from 1991 onwards. That does not mean that he was practicing only from 1991. Admittedly, the deceased was 37 years old at the time of his death. So, the income stated in the petition is no excessive however we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. Out of the above said income one third is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Rs.2,000/- is fixed as contribution to his petitioners. It was held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (AIR 2003 SC 674) that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is it should be “Just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. For the reasons stated above, it is a fit case in which we can give more compensation than the jurisdictional value shown in the appeal. Thus the petitioners are entitled to get an additional compensation of RS.2,42,500/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3. For the reasons stated above, it is a fit case in which we can give more compensation than the jurisdictional value shown in the appeal. Thus the petitioners are entitled to get an additional compensation of RS.2,42,500/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3. The third respondent is directed to deposit the amount within 2 months from today, failing which the appellants are entitled to recover the amount through court. If the amount is deposited, the appellants are at liberty to withdraw the same. The appeal is allowed.