Allowed

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018MACA/1068/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident claims appeal challenged the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of a student. The High Court held the Tribunal erred in fixing a low notional income. The Court enhanced the compensation and corrected heads of damages, allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,99,000 to be deposited within two months with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filing.

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef Vs National Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1068 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1244/2009 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VADAKARA DATED 25.2.2014

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER

¶8

1 LATHEF V.K. ALIAS ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 53 YEARS

¶9

S/O.P.MAMMU, RESIDING AT VANIYAMKANDI (H) CHORODE PO

¶10

VATAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 673 106.

¶11

2 JASMINE NARANGOLI, W/O.LATHEEF, AGED 43 YEARS

¶12

RESIDING AT VANIYAMKANDI (H) CHORODE PO VATAKARA

¶13

THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 673 106.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶16

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

¶17

DIV NO.10, FLAT NO.101-106 N-1 B.M.C HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-1 (P.O) PIN.110 001.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

A.M.BABU, J.

¶21

.......................................... M.A.C.A.No.1068 of 2015

¶22

........................................... Dated 20^th day of June, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The accident was on 21.09.2009. A person by name

¶25

Muhammad Jishan died in the accident. The vehicle which caused the accident was insured with the respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶26

Heard Sri.Zubair Pulikool, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.P.K.Santhamma, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

Muhammad Jishan was a student at the time of the accident. He was 20 years old at the time of his untimely demise. The tribunal had taken a notional income of Rs 3,000/- per month for calculating the compensation. The notional income taken by the tribunal was palpably low. The accident was in the 9^th month of 2009. Muhammad Jishan was holding BA degree and also Ext A4 diploma. Even a daily labourer was able to get much more than Rs 3,000/- in 2009. I find it appropriate to fix the notional income at Rs 8,000/- per month.

¶28

It has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd

¶29

vs Pranay Sethi (2017 (5) KHC 350) that 40% of the monthly

¶30

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.1068 of 2015

¶32

income should be added on to it considering the future prospects in cases of death of persons who were under 40 years. Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SC 3104) holds that in the case of a bachelor one-half of the monthly income should be deducted considering the personal expenses. The compensation for loss of dependency works out to Rs 12,09,600/- (8,000 + 40% = 11,200 – ½ = 5,600/-; 5,600 x 12 x 18 = 12,09,600/-). The amount of Rs 4,86,000/- awarded by the tribunal shall be deducted. The enhancement comes to Rs 7,23,600/-.

¶33

It has been held in Pranay Sethi (supra) that the proper amount to be awarded as funeral expenses shall be Rs 15,000/-. The tribunal awarded Rs 25,000/-. There was an excess of Rs 10,000/-. It shall be deducted.

¶34

Pranay Sethi (supra) holds that Rs 15,000/- shall be the proper compensation for loss of estate. The tribunal awarded only Rs 10,000/-. The appellant is entitled to Rs 5,000/- more.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Pranay Sethi (supra) does not hold that any compensation

¶36

¶37

M.A.C.A.No.1068 of 2015

¶38

should be paid for loss of love and affection. There are umpteen number of decisions holding that compensation can be awarded for loss of love and affection. Nothing is stated in Pranay Sethi (supra) to the effect that no compensation shall be granted under the said head. Therefore I am not inclined to take away the compensation awarded by the tribunal for loss of love and affection.

¶39

The tribunal awarded Rs 20,000/- as compensation for loss of service. It is not known what is meant by that. That is not a recognised head to award compensation. The appellant is not entitled to the amount of Rs 20,000/-.

¶40

An amount of Rs 30,000/- (10,000 + 20,000) shall be deducted from Rs 7,28,600/- (7,23,600 + 5,000 = 7,28,600). The enhancement comes to Rs 6,98,600/-. It can be rounded to Rs 6,99,000/-.

¶41

The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The appellant is awarded Rs 6,99,000/- (six lakhs ninety nine thousand only) as enhancement in compensation. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of

¶42

¶43

M.A.C.A.No.1068 of 2015

¶44

filing of the application before the tribunal to the date of deposit of the enhanced compensation before it. The respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the tribunal together with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/- A.M.BABU Judge

¶46

sks/20.06.2018

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shoukathali Vs C.K.Ramankutty

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mariyamma Daniel

Manzoorali Vs P.v.Aboobacker

Ayoob Vs Siyarali

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R Saradamani

The United India India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramesh