NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. FATHIMATH ZUHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seven friends exhilaratingly went for an excursion to Pondicherry in a Qualis Car bearing Reg.No.KL 02 K 8852. They were students of L.B.S. College of Engineering in Kasaragod. Little was known to them that it was the last trip as regards six among them. The mishap occurred on 10.9.2005 while passing through Pandi to Dindivanam main road at Thailapuram. A Container Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 67/A 5059 hit against the Qualis Car and dragged it towards eastern side. Six of them succumbed to the injuries and the other survived with grievous injuries. Naturally, the legal heirs of the deceased persons moved for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and obtained awards of compensation. Now, the parents of two among them have come up in appeal in M.A.C.A.Nos.175 and 225 of 2012 soliciting enhancement of the quantum of compensation. M.A.C.A.NoS.175 and 225 of 2012 arise respectively from O.P.(M.V)Nos.590 of 2006 and 24 of 2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. M.A.C.A.Nos.2037 & 2050 of 2011 are filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the said accident, respectively against the awards in O.P.(M.V)Nos.24 of 2008 and 590 of 2006. Obviously, these claim petitions were jointly considered and disposed along with four other claim petitions by a common award. In the said circumstances, all these appeals were jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the claimants-appellants are referred to in this judgment as 'the appellants' and the insurer is referred to as 'the 3rd respondent' unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) As noticed hereinbefore, M.A.C.A.Nos.2037 & 2050 of 2011 are filed by the 3rd respondent. While the learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is the erroneous estimation of compensation under different heads, improper appreciation of the evidence on record and the failure to construe the authorities on different aspects involved in these cases properly, by the Tribunal that culminated in awards carrying totally inadequate compensation the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-the insurer contended that the Tribunal went wrong in granting higher rate of compensation under different heads and in granting amount in excess of what is actually due. As noticed hereinbefore, certain factors are common to both the claim petitions from which these appeals arose. The claim petitions were filed by the parents of victims of the accident who were students of L.B.S. College of Engineering, Kasaragod and both the victims were aged 19 years at the time of the accident. Admittedly, taking into account the fact that the victims of the accident are Engineering students and they had not actually started to earn the Tribunal fixed their monthly income notionally at Rs. 12,000/- and thereafter taking into consideration of the fact that they are bachelors, presumably, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 2 KerLT 802 (SC), 50% of the said income was deducted towards personal expenses for fixing the multiplicand for the purpose of computing the compensation payable under the head 'loss of dependency'. In both the cases the Tribunal fixed the multiplier with reference to the age of the mother of the respective victims. In O.P.(M.V)No.590 of 2006 taking into account the age of the first appellant, the mother of the deceased, the multiplier was taken as Rs. 15' and in O.P.(M.V)No.24 of 2008 taking into account the age of the first appellant, the mother of the victim, the multiplier was taken as Rs. 11'. While the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier in those cases the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting the multiplier with reference to the age of the mother of the deceased relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, 2015 6 SCC 347. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- granted towards funeral expenses requires an enhancement in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 3 KerLT 89 (SC). It is contended that in the light of the dictum laid down therein in the absence of evidence for higher compensation under that head at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/- ought to have been granted. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that the Tribunal erroneously estimated the compensation payable under various other heads such as damage to clothing, pain and suffering, loss of love and affection and loss of estate. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent resisted such contentions and submitted that all the relevant aspects were taken into consideration by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under all such heads, but erred in granting exorbitant amount as compensation under loss of dependency. In that regard the learned counsel for the third respondent further contended that the Tribunal went wrong in taking the monthly income of the victims of the accident at Rs. 12,000/- notionally as they were students who had not started to earn anything.