AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedharan, J.—Respondents 2 and 3 in M.A.C. 85 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode are the appellants. They are the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondents 1 to 9 herein are the wife and children of Nambaru, who was killed in the accident. They claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation on account of the death of Nambaru. The Tribunal, by award dated 12.7.1985, directed the third respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.2.1982 till date of payment together with costs, including Advocate''s fee of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal.
Bare facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. At about 6.00 p.m. on 20.2.1982 while deceased Nambaru was walking along the eastern side of Vadakara-Kozhikode Highway, stage carriage bearing Registration No. KLZ 9738 belonging to the appellant, which was coming from behind Nambaru, knocked him down. Nambaru succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in that accident. Claimants-respondents 1 to 9-are his wife and children.
In support of the claim petition, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and on the side of the respondent, RW-1 gave evidence. RW-1 is the driver of the vehicle. On the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the negligence of the first respondent before it, who is the 10th respondent in this appeal. On going through the records and testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and RW-1, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. It, therefore, follows that Number died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the stage carriage, KLZ-9798, which knocked him down at about 6.00 p.m. on 20.2.1982.
The legal heirs of Numbaru claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on two counts, (i) loss of future earnings of the deceased; and (ii) loss of consortium and happy life. On the first count, they claimed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and on the second count Rs. 30,000/-.
Nambaru was a Mason by profession. He was eking his livelihood as a daily rated employee. His daily remuneration, as per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, was Rs. 40/-. According to the Tribunal, the entire 40 rupees would have been handed over to the family for their maintenance. We find it difficult to accept this conclusion. The Mason should have had his personal requirements. For those requirements, he must have had utilised at least Rs. 10/-. That means, the family''s daily dependency would have been Rs. 30/- only. As a daily rated Mason, he would have worked for 20 days a month. Taking note of the rainy seasons in this part of the country and weekly holidays, it is not possible to think that a daily rated employee can secure work for more than 20 days a month in the average. In this view of the matter, the monthly dependency of the members of the family would be Rs. 600/-. It works out the annual dependency to Rs. 7,200/-.
At the time of the accident, Number was aged 55 years. He could have worked as a Mason for another eight years. So, the loss of earning can be Rs. 57,600/-. This amount is to be rounded to Rs. 58,000/-. It means that the future earning of the deceased can be fixed to be at Rs. 58,000/- only.
The next head of damages claimed is on account of loss of consortium and happy life. The quantum to be awarded as compensation for loss of consortium and happy life came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, Their Lordships observed that the loss of consortium can only be in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/-. So, on the second head of claim, the claimants, respondents 1 to 9 herein, are entitled only to a sum of Rs. 15,000/-.
In view of what has been stated above, the total amount of compensation due to respondents 1 to 9 can only be Rs. 58,000/- by way of loss of future earnings of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium. This works out to be Rs. 73,000/- This amount of Rs. 73,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.2.1982, as ordered by the Tribunal, till date of payment. In calculating the amount payable to respondents 1 to 9, the amount already paid will be given credit to. Second appellant-the Insurance Company, which is to pay the amount as ordered above, should deposit Rs. 70,000/- in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit in the name of respondents 1 to 9 herein, with a direction to the bank to pay monthly interest to respondents 1 to 9. This will be in super session of the interim order passed by this Court in C.M.P. 28142 of 1985 and the direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned award.
Appeal is allowed in part as indicate above. No costs.