IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 166 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.691/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------ 1. LAILA CHELLAPPAN, VATTACHIRA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. DHANYA, D/O.CHELLAPPAN, VATTACHIRA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. DHANEESH, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VATTACHIRA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. DHANOOP(MINOR)S/O.CHELLAPPAN. VATTACHIRA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, REP. BY NEXT FRIEND LAILA CHELLAPPAN. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. S.SAJEEV, MALIYIL HOUSE, AMALAGIRI P.O., AMMENCHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 2. V.P.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, VETATHU HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. 4. GOURI KUMARAN, THADATHIL, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADVS. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU FOR R4 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008 ALONG WITH MACA NO. 582 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NOS. 166 & 582 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected appeals are filed for enhancement of compensation, in one case for the death of the husband of the first appellant who was the father of the remaining appellants and in the other case for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in that case. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in both the cases. 2. Deceased, one Mr. Chellappan, had contracted two marriages. While he was travelling in an autorickshaw with his second wife and three children, the autorickshaw hit against another vehicle leading to his death and injuries to the second wife. Two separate claim petitions were filed for compensation for the death of Mr. Chellappan, one by the first wife and mother of the deceased and the other by the second wife and her children. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation and allotted the compensation so awarded between the first wife, mother of the deceased and the children of the deceased born in the second wife. In other words, no compensation was granted to the second wife. M.A.C.A. NOS. 166 & 582/2005 2 3. In M.A.C.A. No. 166 of 2005, claim is for enhancement of compensation for the death of Mr. Chellappan. Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month is very low because the deceased was running a furniture shop as its proprietor and was maintaining his two wives and children besides his mother. According to counsel, the deceased was getting Rs.8,000/- per month. Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the claim for enhancement and contended that the first wife and mother of the deceased accepted the compensation fixed by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased and allocation of 20% to each of them. We do not think failure of the other claimants to file appeal should defeat the case of the appellant if she is otherwise entitled to enhancement. Gross monthly income of Rs.2,000/- is certainly too low for a furniture shop owner. However, since the other claimants have not filed appeal, we feel fixation of a total additional compensation will serve the purpose. We, therefore, grant an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- to each of the claimants who are appellants 2, 3 and 4 . This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till date of payment. 4. In M.A.C.A. No.582 of 2005, the appellant suffered injuries in the same accident in which her husband died. Her two children also M.A.C.A. NOS. 166 & 582/2005 3 sustained injuries. Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the disability certificate and contended that compensation granted to the appellant who was a tailor is very meagre . Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company referred to the very same medical report and submitted that damage sustained to the eye of the appellant was rectified in the course of treatment. However, it is not clear as to whether there is any percentage of loss of vision after treatment. The appellant suffered injury to the left eye and even after treatment, the eye was in a still condition. However, considering the claim for disability and the discomfort caused to the appellant, we enhance the compensation by Rs.15,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE (HARUN-UL-RASHID) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NOS. 166 & 582/2005 4 C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.A.C.A. NOS.166 &582/05 JUDGMENT 17th November, 2008