AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The appellants are the dependants of deceased Jyothi Prakash, who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. They filed O.P. (M.V.) No 97/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, claiming compensation for the death of their bread winner. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Head of claim
Amount
awarded
1 Medical bills
69,410.00
2 Dependency
360,000.00
3 Consortium
10,000.00
4 Pain and sufferings
15,000.00
5 Transportation
1,500.00
6 Funeral expenses
2,500.00
7 Total
458,410.00
But on the ground that the deceased was a pillion rider of the vehicle, who is not covered by the policy issued by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent was absolved from liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation. Aggrieved by the finding regarding the liability of the insurance company as well as the quantum awarded, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation and to direct the insurance company to pay the amount.
The first contention of the appellants is that the policy was a package policy and, therefore, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and Another, a pillion rider is also liable to be covered under such policy and therefore the deceased is also covered by such a policy. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is submitted that the Tribunal has deducted one-third for personal expenses of the deceased, which is wrong, insofar as, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, when the number of dependants are 4 to 6, only one-fourth could have been deducted. Here there are five dependants and therefore the Tribunal should have deducted only one-fourth for the personal expenses of the deceased is the contention raised. The second contention is that the wife was only 36 years at the time of death of her husband with two children and therefore the compensation for loss of consortium of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is palpably low. It is further submitted that although there were two minor children and aged parents for the deceased, no amount has been awarded for loss of love and affection suffered by them. The Tribunal should have awarded adequate compensation for loss of love and affection of the children and the parents is the contention raised. Lastly it is contended that no amount has been awarded for loss of estate and a conventional amount should have been awarded under that head.
We have heard the learned standing counsel for the insurance company as well. He argues for sustaining the award.
We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
It is not disputed before us that the policy issued by the 3rd respondent insurance company is a package policy. The Supreme Court has settled the law on the subject by the decision in Balakrishnan''s case (supra) to the effect that a comprehensive/package policy covers pillion riders of a motor cycle as well. That being so, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the compensation payable to the appellants. Consequently, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), the proper deduction for personal expenses of the deceased is only one-fourth insofar as there are five dependants in this case. But we are not inclined to interfere with the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. But we note that for a person aged 44 years, which the deceased was, the multiplier applicable is only 14, whereas the Tribunal has adopted 15. Calculated on that basis, the compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,78,000/- ( Rs. 3000 x 12 x 14 x >) instead of Rs. 3,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The difference would be Rs. 18,000/-. For a 36 year old wife, when her husband dies, the compensation for loss of consortium should be at least Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the wife is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 20,000/- under that head. On account of the death of their father, the children and on account of the death of their son, the parents have lost love and affection that they would be got from the deceased. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. We fix this amount as Rs. 30,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of estate as well. We award Rs. 10,000/- under this head. Altogether, the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 78,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Since we have found that the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award, the insurance company shall pay this amount also along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of payment, along with the compensation assessed by the Tribunal with interest at the rate fixed by the Tribunal within two months. The additional amount awarded by us shall be shared equally by appellants 1 to 3. The amounts due to the minors shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank deriving interest, which interest on accrual can be withdrawn by the 1st appellant from time to time for the welfare of appellants 2 and 3. The share of the 1st appellant shall be disbursed in accordance with the terms fixed by the Tribunal.
With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.