Dismissed

Nalini v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Nov 2015MACA/1864/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the motor accident claims appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's quantum of compensation awarded to the legal heirs for the death of the deceased, finding no inadequacy in amounts awarded for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and other heads.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's impugned award was upheld.

Nalini Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

MACA.No. 1864 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1285/2011 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 2502-2015

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -----------------------1. NALINI AGED 68 YEARS W/O. PARAMESHWARAN, KAPRAKKADAN HOUSE, ONAMPILLY OKKAL PO, PIN-683 550 2. JOSHI AGED 48 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KAPRAKKADAN HOUSE, ONAMPILLY OKKAL PO, PIN-683 550 3. BINDU AGED 45 YEARS W/O. SHAJI, KUDIYIL HOUSE, ONAMPILLY OKKAL PO, PIN-683 550 4. MIN AGED 44 YEARS W/O. SURESH BABU, KAPRAKKADAN HOUSE, NEELESWARAM PO PIN-683 548 BY ADVS.SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENTS:

¶8

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. 2ND FLOOR, REMA PLAZA, NEAR PARAMESHWARAN COIL, S.S. COIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶9

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶11

¶12

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶17

Appellants are claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1285 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Parameswaran, who died in a motor accident occurred on 16.09.2011. A KSRTC bus bearing No. KL 15/8002 driven by the second respondent before the Tribunal and insured with the respondent herein hit the motorcycle ridden by Parameswaran, which resulted in fatal injuries. The claimants filed claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under different heads. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,47,050/under different heads. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and the respondent herein being the insurer of the bus was held liable for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

¶18

M.A.C.A. No. 1864 of 2015

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

Tribunal, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal.

¶21

We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶22

At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 67 years. Though it was contended that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- as a vendor in sale of sacks, in the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. After deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier '5', the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of dependency. The aforesaid amount awarded by the Tribunal, based on the materials on record, represents a just and reasonable compensation, which requires no interference in this appeal.

¶23

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In Rajesh and

¶24

Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others [2013 (3) KLT 89], the

¶25

Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, the Courts have to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In that view of the matter, Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the above head

¶26

M.A.C.A. No. 1864 of 2015 : 3 :

¶27

represents a just and reasonable compensation, warranting no interference in this appeal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each under the heads loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In Rajesh's case (supra) the Apex Court held that in appropriate cases, the Courts have to award at least Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium. In that case deceased was aged only 33 years and his wife was still young. Even in that case, the Apex Court had awarded only Rs.1,00,000/under the head loss of consortium.

¶28

After referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Mary and

¶29

Others Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [2014 (1) KLT 805], followed by the judgment in Valsamma and another Vs. Binu Jose and Others [2014 (1) KLT 10] held that the age of the deceased and the age of the wife are relevant factors while considering the question of compensation to be awarded for loss of consortium. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 67 years and the 1^st appellant who is his widow, was aged 64 years at the time of accident. The respondent insurer has not challenged the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to the appellant under the head loss of consortium. At any rate, it cannot be contended that

¶30

M.A.C.A. No. 1864 of 2015

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of consortium is on a lower side. Similarly, at the time of accident, the appellants 2 to 4, who are the children of the deceased were aged 43, 41 and 39 years respectively. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection can not be termed inadequate, warranting interference of this Court.

¶33

The Compensation awarded towards transportation to hospital (Rs.5,000/-), treatment expenses (Rs.11,050/-), damage to clothing (Rs.1,000/-) and pain and sufferings (Rs.10,000/-) also represent a just and reasonable compensation, which also do not require any enhancement at the hands of this Court.

¶34

In the result, we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned Award. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶37

sd/-

¶38

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

kmd /True copy/