Kerala High Court
Anandhu Ram vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 28 January, 2025
MACA.516/2017
1
2025:KER:9980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 516 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.08.2016 IN OPMV NO.132 OF
2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ANANDHU RAM
S/O.LATE CHITRA, THINDIYATH HOUSE,
PARAPPOOKKARA VILLAGE, PUDUKAD P.O.,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 SULOCHANA
M/O.LATE CHITRA, NOCHIYIL HOUSE,
PUDUKAD P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/2nd RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
PALAKKAD - 678001
BY ADV S.PRASANTH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA.516/2017
2
2025:KER:9980
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.132/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)
2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the minor son and mother of the deceased Chithra, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.12.2012. According to them, on 21.12.2012, when the deceased was waiting to cross NH 47 at Kurumali, a car bearing registration No. KL-9Z-1294 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit down the deceased and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on 23.12.2012.
3. The 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.33,94,000/- limited to Rs.25,00,000/-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the MACA.516/2017 3 2025:KER:9980 accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 and B1.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,94,600/-.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri. P.V. Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri. S.Prasanth, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is less. According to him, the deceased was an Accountant getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. He has also relied upon the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A11 certificate issued by PW1 to MACA.516/2017 4 2025:KER:9980 substantiate the above argument. The Tribunal found that PW1 failed to produce the supporting documents and hence he did not believe Exhibit A11 certificate.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, GO(MS)No.123/2015/LBR dated 4.9.2015 under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Payment of Fair Wages Amendment Act 1971 to argue that during the year 2015, the minimum wage of an Accountant is in the scale starting with Rs.15,900/-. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would argue that since the notification is of 2015, the same could not be applied in a case of 2012. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a Coolie during the year 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. The deceased in this case is a well qualified Accountant. Petitioners have produced Exhibit A8 B.Com degree Certificate and Exhibit A9 Tally and PGDCA Certificate of the petitioner. Since in the Government notification referred above, the minimum wages of an Accountant during the year 2015 was fixed at Rs.15,900/-, I hold that in this case the notional income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.12,000/-.
12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years. MACA.516/2017 5
2025:KER:9980 Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 15, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married, who left behind 2 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.18,00,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and each dependent is entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners are entitled to get a sum of Rs.96,800/- (48,400 x 2).
14. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further MACA.516/2017 6 2025:KER:9980 compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others, (2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards the love and affection is to be deducted.
15. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
16. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.19,89,100/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference.
Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded by The amount given
the Tribunal (Rs) in appeal (Rs.)
1 Funeral expenses 25,000/- 18,150/-
2 Transportation expenses 5,000/- 5,000/-
3 Medical expenses 21,000/- 21,000/-
4 Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 30,000/-
5 Loss of dependency 8,73,600/- 18,00,000/-
6 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- nil
7 Loss of estate 40,000/- 18150/-
8 Loss of consortium Nil 96,800/-
Total 10,94,60/- 19,89,100/-
Amount enhanced Rs.8,94,500/-
17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 2 nd respondent is directed to deposit a total compensation of Rs.19,89,100/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand One Hundred Only), less the MACA.516/2017 7 2025:KER:9980 amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (For the enhanced compensation, rate of interest is limited to 8%).
On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE sou.