Allowed

Rosamma v. John

Kerala HC10 Oct 2018MACA/2026/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this Motor Accident Claims Appeal. The appellants argued the Tribunal undervalued the deceased's income as a building contractor. The Court held there was no evidence to lower the income to Rs.1,500. It enhanced the award to Rs.7,30,000 based on the claimed income, applied specific multiplier and multipliers from National Insurance precedents, and increased funeral, esta

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.7,30,000 with 9% interest directed to be paid by insurer within 30 days, else 12% interest.

Rosamma Vs John — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 2026 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1270/2002 of MACT MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 2404-2006

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 ROSAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 74, PLAIPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MALIPPARA P.O., PAZHANGARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶9

2 JOSE SO.JOSEPH, AGED 43, PLAIPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MALIPPARA P.O.,, PAZHANGARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶10

3 SAJAN SO.JOSEPH, AGED 35, PLAIPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,, MALIPPARA P.O., PAZHANGARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 JOHN, S/O.KURIAKOSE, MUNDAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOCHUCHELACHUVADU,, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE.

¶14

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3 SHAJI SO.YOYAKI PUTHUKKUNNATHU HOUSE, CHELADU P.O.,, KOTHAMANGALAM. (DELETED) (R3 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 18.03.2008 IN IA NO.671/2008)

¶16

4 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, PB NO.50,, ILANJICKAL MATHEW MEMORIAL PLAZA,, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶17

5 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, PATTAM.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN SC K.S.R.T.C. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

MACA.No. 2026 of 2006

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No.1270/2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha by the legal representatives of the deceased Binoy @ Siji. On 21.04.2002 at 11.10 am, the deceased was travelling in a jeep KL-7B/9675 along Aluva - Munnar public road, when he reached at the place of occurrence, a bus KL15/4468 came from the opposite direction and jeep collided with bus and the passengers in the jeep sustained serious injuries and Siji died at the spot itself. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.81,500/- as compensation. Being aggrieved by that, the dependents of the deceased preferred this appeal.

¶24

In the lower court, respondents entered appearance and contested the matter. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. This case was tried along with OP(MV) Nos.698/12, 956/12, 957/12, 960/12, 1126/12, 1079/12, 177/13, 954/13, 959/13. Claimants evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A44. Respondents documents were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.

¶25

MACA.No. 2026 of 2006

¶26

¶27

In fatal accident case, the measure of damage

¶28

is towards the pecuniary losses, which is to be suffered by the dependents as a result of the death. But the assessment of damages to the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables. The life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents are the major factors. Secondly the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining period of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period is also relevant. The chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better job and earned more income also have to be considered by the tribunal.

¶29

Apex court in National Insurance Company

¶30

V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] held as follows:

¶31

61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

¶32

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santhosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a

¶33

MACA.No. 2026 of 2006

¶34

¶35

coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

¶36

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

¶37

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

¶38

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶39

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.

¶40

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

¶41

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶42

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss

¶43

MACA.No. 2026 of 2006

¶44

¶45

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

¶46

Appellants contended that the deceased was a building contractor and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal took only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. Claimants are legal heirs of the deceased. It is true that, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to get just amount as compensation. In the absence of any contra evidence in view of Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd (2011 13 SCC 236), the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,000/-. The deceased was aged 32 years and the multiplier is 16. There are four dependents and ¼ is to be deducted. The total dependency compensation is Rs.5,000x12x16x3/4=Rs.7,20,000/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- and the balance amount is Rs.6,60,000/-. Along with that, Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expense, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-

¶47

MACA.No. 2026 of 2006

¶48

¶49

(Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. In view of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013 9 SCC 54), insurer is directed to satisfy the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶50

This appeal is disposed of, as above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

P.D.RAJAN JUDGE

¶53

bng/12.10.18

Rosamma v. John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosamma v. John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreelatha Vs National Insurance Co.

Aboobacker Paranchery Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anot

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sreelatha

Alexander Sebastian Vs Lilly

Alexander Sebastian Vs Biyatras

Christy Kuruvila @ Christy Vs Tijo K. Baby