LAWS(KER)-2019-3-148

GOPU Vs. K S SUBHAGAN

Decided On March 01, 2019
GOPU Appellant
V/S
K S Subhagan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (M.V.) No.1769 of 2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha by the legal representatives of the deceased Rasimol. The deceased sustained injuries in a motor accident at Avalookunnu Post Office road, the legal representative preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,53,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Three Thousand only). Being aggrieved by that, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this appeal.

(2.) It would be relevant and useful to mention the facts leading to the accident. On 02.06.2000 at 3 p.m., the deceased Rasimol was travelling as a pillion rider on KL-04/C-7054 through Alappuzha-Thanneermukkom public road, when they reached at Avalookunnu Post Office, the 1st respondent applied sudden brake, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries. Immediately she was removed to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha but while undergoing treatment she died on 07.06.2000. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by its rider. The owner and driver were ex parte in the lower court. Insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The 1st claimant was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A6.

(3.) The deceased was working as a Junior Public Health Nurse at PHC, Thenipalam and was getting an amount of Rs.5,955/- per month. The 1st claimant (K.S. Subhagan) was her husband and the 2nd and 3rd claimants Gopu and Goukul are her children. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Just amount was not awarded by the Tribunal. After the death of Rasimol, three Pay commission Reports dated 25.03.2006, 26.02.2011 and 20.01.2016 were implemented. Considerable increase in salary was recommended in the Pay Commission. The future prospects, the hike in the salary was not considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation.