Partly allowed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.Sheela

Kerala HC23 Feb 2017MACA/825/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by an insurance company against an award of compensation for death in a road traffic accident. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award by reducing the dependency loss component, directing deposit of a reduced amount.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to reduce compensation by Rs. 4,08,366/- totaling Rs. 30,88,062/-; deposit directed within two months with 7.5% interest.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs P.Sheela — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/4TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶7

MACA.No. 825 of 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 21/2006 of MACT ALAPPUZHA DATED 20-06-2014

¶9

APPELLANT/R3 IN OPMV 21/2006:

¶10

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

¶11

KONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS 1-3 AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,AND 4 TO 8 IN MVOP 21/2006.:

¶14

P.SHEELA, AGED 44,

¶15

D/O.DINAMONI, SHEELA BHAVAN, KOLLAKA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY690536.

¶16

ASWATHY, AG ED 16,

¶17

D/O.SHEELA, SHEELA BHAVAN, KOLLAKA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SHEELA-690536.

¶18

ASHWIN, AGED 13

¶19

S/O.SHEELA, SHEELA BHAVAN, KOLLAKA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SHEELA-690536.

¶20

MADHUKUMAR S.

¶21

S/O.SREEDHARAN UNNITHAN, UDAYAMKALAYIL VEEDU, ERATHI, VADAKKEDATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR-691529.

¶22

BEENA R.

¶23

W/O.MADHUKUMAR, SOPANAM, VADAKKEDATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR-

maca 825/15

SUKUMARANAGED 76

¶28

MANNARATHU VADAKKETHIL, KANNAMANGALAM, NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA-690106. (DIED)

¶29

SANKARY AMMA AGED 71

¶30

W/O.SKUMARAN, MANNARATHU VADAKKETHIL, KANNAMANGALAM, NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA-690106. (RECORDED)

¶31

ABEYMON T.S.

¶32

S/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED T.A., PUTHENPURAYIL, CHUKOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶33

RENUKA A.

¶34

MANJIPUZHA HOUSE, ERAVUKADU WARD, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶35

THE MANAGER

¶36

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, KOTTACKAL BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA688001.

¶37

7TH RESPONDENT IN THE PARTY ARRAY IS RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS FO THE DE CEASED SIXTH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 6.8.15 IN IA 2700/15 IN MACA 825/15.

¶38

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU

¶39

R10 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN(B/O,NO MEMO) R10 BY ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY

¶40

R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶41

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

C.K. ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V.,JJ.

¶43

==============================

¶44

M.A.C.A. No. 825 of 2015

¶45

============================== Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2017

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Shircy.V.,J.

¶48

The 3^rd Respondent Insurance Company in O.P.(MV)No. 21/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha has come up with this appeal alleging that the compensation awarded to the claimants/respondents, is exorbitant and unreasonable . The claimants , legal heirs / dependents of the deceased Shajakumar who died in the road traffic accident which occurred on 3.2.2004 instituted the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of him,

¶49

Briefly stated the facts are : That the deceased

¶50

while travelling in a three wheeler vehicle from north to

¶51

MACA 825/2015 2

¶52

south through Alappuzha-Kollam National Highway, on the fateful day was knocked down by a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-03/J6296 driven by the 1^st Respondent in a rash and negligent manner causing fatal injuries. Even though he was rushed to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha and referred to Amritha Hospital, Ernakulam he succumbed to the injuries on 23.2.2004. Hence, the legal heirs/ dependents of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs. The learned Tribunal had awarded in total a sum of Rs.34, 96,428/under various heads.

¶53

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company as well the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶54

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned award has contended that, exorbitant amount has been awarded as compensation under different heads and the judicial pronouncements of

¶55

MACA 825/2015

¶56

¶57

Apex court regarding the computation of compensation has not been considered properly and correctly. Per contra , the learned counsel for the claimants justifying the award held that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and awarded reasonable compensation. It is significant to note that the deceased was aged 45 years, working as Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.18,665/-. Ext.A6 Salary Certificate produced by the claimants would show that he was earning a total salary of Rs.17,451.40 per month. The Tribunal after considering the fact that he would retire only at the age of 60 years, if he was alive and would have attained better achievements and prospects ,in future added an addition of 30% of income and thus fixed it as Rs. 22,687/- (17451 + 30% 17,451 )and 1/5^th of the income was deducted towards his personal expenses .The multiplier adopted was 15 . It is to be noted that the claimants are three in number. So 1/4^th of the income have to be deducted to compute the loss

¶58

¶59

MACA 825/2015

¶60

of dependency. So also as he was aged 45 years, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 14 and not 15 as taken by the Tribunal. While deciding a claim for compensation on account of death the Tribunal is obliged to award proper, just and fair compensation. Compensation has to be awarded taking into consideration of all the material and various factors and quantify the amount. Hence, compensation under the head loss of dependency have to be re-fixed as 28,58,562/-(22,687x12x14x3/4). The amount awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.32,66,928/- is not correct and hence the amount is reduced by 4,08,366/-. We do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the compensation awarded under any other heads as only just and reasonable amount had been awarded. Hence, the award under challenge is modified by reducing a sum of Rs. 4,08,366/- Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.30,88,062/-.(34,96,428- 4,08,366/-)

¶61

Accordingly , the award is modified and the appeal is

¶62

MACA 825/2015

¶63

¶64

disposed of directing the Appellant - Insurance Company to deposit the amount of 30,88,062/- (Rupees thirty lakhs eighty eight thousand and sixty two only) within a period of two months from today. The said amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

¶65

On such deposit, the claimants are at liberty to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the amount. If such an application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders considering the question of permitting withdrawal as per the apportionment fixed in the award.

Sd/-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

ks.

true copy

P.S.To JUDGE

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.Sheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.Sheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subaida Vs Midhun Gopinath @ Midhun

S. Nagappan Chettiar Vs Midhun Gopinath @ Midhun

Royal Sundarama Alliance Vs Sonu Sudharman

Janaki Vs P.Prasad

Kaja Hussain Vs v.Sankara Menon

Rajakumari Vs Jayarajan