AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioners in this appeal are the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 1051/2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. The claim was in respect of the death of their bread winner, viz., Antony, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 19.5.2002, involving an autorickshaw owned by the 1st respondent driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. He was originally only injured in the accident and was hospitalized. He was in the hospital for a period of one month and there he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The petitioners claimed a total amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Antony. By the award impugned in this appeal, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,03,500/- as compensation. The appeal is filed challenging the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, the award suffered from the following infirmities:
The monthly income of Antony was fixed only as Rs. 1500/-. He was a casual labourer. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed at least Rs. 3000/- as the monthly income of the deceased for calculating the dependency, is the contention in respect of the same. Secondly, the petitioners would contend that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- fixed as compensation for pain and suffering is too low. According to the petitioners, Antony was in the hospital for a period of one month and he had suffered injuries including fracture, as a result of which, he had suffered great pain and consequently, the compensation for pain and suffering should have been minimum Rs. 50,000/-. It is also submitted that the deceased was only 46 years at the relevant time and the 1st petitioner was aged only 38 years. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium, which is also on the lower side is the contention raised. Therefore, the petitioners seek enhancement on all three counts.
The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
We have considered the rival contentions in detail. The accident was on 19.5.2002. The postmortem certificate certified that the said Antony succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. Admittedly he was a casual labourer. In 2002 a casual labourer would fetch a monthly income of much more than Rs. 1500/-. Therefore, we are inclined to take Rs. 2250/- as the monthly income of the deceased Antony. Likewise, considering the fact that Antony was in the hospital for a month and he was in great pain because of the injury suffered by him, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- fixed for pain and suffering is on the lower side. We are inclined to enhance it to Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased and that of the 1st petitioner-widow, we are inclined to enhance the compensation for loss of consortium to Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-. Taking into account Rs. 2,250/- as the monthly income of the deceased Antony, the petitioners would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- for the death of Antony after deducting one-third for personal expenses. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,56,000/-. Therefore, on that count, the petitioners are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 78,000/-. Adding the additional compensation awarded by us for pain and suffering and the loss of consortium, the additional compensation, to which, the petitioners are entitled to is Rs. 93,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on that amount from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The 3rd respondent insurance company shall deposit the above amount with interest within three months from today.
The M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.