Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 921 (KER)

USHA P. R. v. R. SREEKUMAR

2015-07-20

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2015
JUDGMENT P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. Inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the death of a pedestrian is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 3. Going by the pleadings and proceedings, no case is established on the part of the insurer as to the absence of driving licence. In so far as coverage is admitted, we dispense with service of notice to the first and second respondents. 4. The accident occurred on 23.10.1999 when a bus bearing registration No. KL-7C/2739 driven by the third respondent and owned by the first respondent hit against the husband of the first appellant by about 11.30 a.m. while he was standing on the side of the road. Though he was immediately taken to the hospital, the life could not be saved and he succumbed to the injuries. This led to the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased. The first and third respondents chose to remain ex parte. Written statement was filed by the insurer contending that there was no valid driving licence for the driver; which however was not substantiated by adducing any evidence. The dispute was more with regard to the quantum as discussed by the Tribunal who awarded amounts under various heads coming to a total of Rs. 2,34,500/- which was ordered to be satisfied by the insurance company with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the deceased was working as a fisherman and was having membership in the concerned welfare fund. It is stated that he was also having some avocation connected with tyre re-treading. The Tribunal reckoned only a sum of Rs. 1,700/- per mensem as the notional income and worked out the dependency granting a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are as follows:- Heads of compensation Rupees Loss of dependency Rs. 2,04,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium, love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Transportation Rs. 1,000/- Treatment expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 2,34,500/- 6. 2,04,000/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are as follows:- Heads of compensation Rupees Loss of dependency Rs. 2,04,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium, love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Transportation Rs. 1,000/- Treatment expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 2,34,500/- 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite inadequate in so far as the monthly income of the deceased has been reckoned at a much lower level, ignoring the fact that the deceased was a person maintaining his family consisting of his wife, two minor children and also the aged mother. Considering the nature of the pleadings raised and the available materials, we find that the monthly income of the deceased has to be taken at the rate of Rs. 2,500/-. Going by the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court and also taking note of the number of members in the family, we find that deduction of 1/4th for the personal expenses is enough, in the place of 1/3rd ordered by the Tribunal. We recompute the compensation as given above and award a sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- (Rs. 2500 x 12 x 15 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Thus, the appellants are entitled to get a balance sum of Rs. 1,33,500/- under this head, after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. We find that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is very low and we enhance the same to Rs. 7,500/-. Thus the appellants are entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards this count. We see that only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and love and affection. We refix the amount and award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as loss of consortium payable to the first appellant and towards loss of affection, we award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in respect of the three members of the family. Thus, towards loss of consortium and loss of affection, the appellants are entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 40,000/-. We award an additional sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Towards transportation and treatment expenses, we find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meagre. 30,000/- in respect of the three members of the family. Thus, towards loss of consortium and loss of affection, the appellants are entitled to get an additional sum of Rs. 40,000/-. We award an additional sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Towards transportation and treatment expenses, we find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meagre. Hence, we award an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards these heads together. 8. Thus the appellants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The insurance company is directed to satisfy the amount with interest within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This appeal is allowed in part. No costs.