JOSEPH Vs. FAISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P. (M.V.)No. 883 of 2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. Their mother, namely, Thressia was involved in a motor accident which took place on 6.5.2014 at 4.45p.m. while she was walking along Kunnamkulam-Thrissur public road. When she reached near Kechery, the offending vehicle hither and she sustained severe injuries. She was taken to Amala Hospital, Thrissur, treated there and she died on the same day. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 89,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no amount has been granted towards loss of dependency on the ground that she was not an earning member. She was aged 72 at the time of the accident. Learned counsel submitted that even in the case of deceased who are house wives or mother, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 4 KerLJ 230(SC)) held that the value of services to the family will have to be computed since there will be loss of the same to the family. By adopting such a standard, compensation can be granted.

(2.) We have gone through the judgment in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 4 KerLJ 230(SC)) wherein, the principles have been discussed in detail in paragraph 23 onwards. The Apex Court was of the view that it is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e., husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the service of housewife/mother. In that context, the term 'services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband, as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. Therein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon an earlier decision on the said point. Herein, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that she was caring to the various affairs in the household and was an able bodied person even though, she was aged 72 years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even in such cases only a notional amount can be fixed and the multiplier can only be 5.