AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1588 of 2003 on the file of M.A.C.T., Thrissur. The case of the petitioners in the O.P.(M.V.) is as follows. The first petitioner is the husband and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Jaya Gopinath who died in a motor accident. The accident occurred on 26.10.2002 at about 8.30 A.M. While the deceased was coming back home from the temple in Pazhaya Nadakkavu along the Thrissur Town M.G. Road from east to west direction, an autorikshaw bearing reg. no. KL-8/J-8263 driven by the first respondent came from east to west and hit the deceased. She sustained severe head injuries and on 17.12.2002 she succumbed to her injuries. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, who was the driver of the auto rickshaw. Second respondent was the R.C. owner of the autorikshaw and third respondent was the insurer. Fourth respondent is the present owner of the vehicle. The petitioners claimed Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation.
Respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the autorikshaw and contended that the accident was not due to negligence of the first respondent. Before the Claims Tribunal no oral evidence was adduced from both sides. Exts. A1 to 8 and B1 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,26,800/- to the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 24.6.2003 till the date of realisation from the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners filed this appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded is very low and that the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award.
The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 58 years and therefore the Claims Tribunal took 9 as the suitable multiplier. The deceased was a housewife. The Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and awarded compensation for loss of dependency of Rs. 2,16,000/-. In the decision reported in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , it was held that the value of services of a housewife can be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. No deduction for personal expenses is permissible while taking the value of service. Therefore, Rs. 3,000/- per month can be taken as the value of service of the deceased. Calculating on that basis the appellants are entitled to get Rs. 3,24,000/- (3000 x 12 x 9) as compensation for loss of dependency instead of Rs. 2,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under other heads is reasonable. Thus the appellants are entitled to get Rs. 1,08,000/- as additional compensation.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part and the appellants are allowed to realise Rs. 1,08,000/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 24.6.2003 till the date of realisation from respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount as the insurer within three months from this date. The additional compensation is to be apportioned among the appellants equally. There is no order as to costs.