Allowed

Annam T v. Sunitha V.R

Kerala HC29 Oct 2018MACA/2168/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.1,92,500/-. Applying National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, the Court fixed the deceased's income at Rs.11,200/-, applied a multiplier of 15, and enhanced the award to Rs.10,30,500/- distinct from confusion in the lower Tribunal's calculation, including funeral and estate losses.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,30,500/- with 9% interest and proportionate costs awarded, directed insurer to pay within 30 days.

Annam T Vs Sunitha V.R — 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

MONDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 753/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 ANNAM T W/O. LATE BABY, NEDUMARIYIL @ NEDUMARIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR, MULAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶9

2 BEENA JAMES W/O. K.C.JAMES, 422 B, RAILWAY QUARTERS, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKADU FROM KAKKANATTU HOUSE, MEMADANGU, ARIKKUZHA, ARAKKUZHA.

¶10

3 BABU BABY S/O. BABY, NEDUMARIYIL @ NEDUMARIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR, MULAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SMT.V.V.RISANI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶13

1 SUNITHA V.R VENGINIKATTIL HOUSE, ULAMBATHUMKUNNU, NELLAI P.O., KODAKARA, THRISSUR-680 305. [REMOVED]

¶14

2 PRIJITH P. S/O. PREMKUMAR, ROHINI, NALUMUKKU, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, PERURKKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.[REMOVED]

¶15

[RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE REMOVED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 22/06/2018 IN IA.NO.2044/2018 IN MACA.2168/2012].

¶16

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012 2

¶17

3 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. TS 28/2222(S), ANUGRAHA, 2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012 3

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV)753/2010 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha by the legal representatives of the deceased Bini Baby. On 31.5.2018, the deceased Bini Baby aged 37 years met with an accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,500/- with 8% interest and proportionate costs, directed the insurer to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by that, legal representatives of the deceased preferred this appeal.

¶23

It would be now relevant and useful to mention the facts leading to the accident. On 31.5.2010 at about 9.30 a.m while the deceased was walking through the eastern road margin of NH 47, the offending car bearing Reg.No.KL-08AF-1743 came from the northern side and knock down her, as a result she sustained fatal injuries to which she succumbed. The accident was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car in excessive speed by the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the 3^rd respondent is

¶24

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012 4

¶25

its insurer.

¶26

The deceased was was aged 37 at the time of accident. She was working as a teacher at Don Bosco Public School, Angamali and getting Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal took only Rs.5,000/- for calculating the dependency compensation. She is survived by her mother Annam aged 72 years, sister Beena aged 43 years, brothers babu baby aged 43 years, Biju Baby aged 40 years. The tribunal reduced the income without any reason.

¶27

In fatal accident case, the measure of damage 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

¶28

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012 5

¶29

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.

¶30

Apex Court in National Insurance Company V.

¶31

Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)] held as follows:

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012 6

¶38

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 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.

¶43

The dependents of the deceased are entitled to get

¶44

just amount as compensation. The respondents have no dispute with regard to the qualification of the deceased. Ext.A8 B.Ed certificate shows that she had passed B.Ed degree, but no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove the income. But e in view of D ixit Kumar and Ors. Vs. Om

¶45

*Prskash Goel [2017 ACJ 2057* her income is taken as

¶46

Rs.8,000/- per month. Along with that 40% has to be added towards future prospects in view of Pranaysethi's case (Supra), therefore the total income is Rs.11,200 (8000 +

¶47

M.A.C.A.No. 2168 of 2012 7

¶48

3200), since she was a spinster 50% has to be deducted for the compensation. She was aged 37 years, the multiplier is 15. Total amout is Rs.10,08,000/- (11200x12x15x1/2) . The compensation is Rs.10,08,000/- along with that Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.12,500/- towards loss of estate. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.10,30,500/-. The learned Tribunal awarded 1,50,000/towards loss of dependency and the balance amount is Rs.8,80,500/-.

¶49

The legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.8,80,500/- (Eight lakhs eighty thousand five hundred) with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost as enhanced compensation. Insurer is directed to satisfy the award in 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.

SD/-

P.D.RAJAN

JUDGE

ACM / 30.10.2018

Annam T v. Sunitha V.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annam T v. Sunitha V.R

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

Geetha Mol Vs Abdul Rahman Kunju

Vidhya Lakshmi Vs Abdul Rahman Kunju

Jayalekshmi Vs Abdul Rahman Kunju

Shibinlal.M.K Vs K.P. Ummer

Sri.R.M.Joshy Vs Sri.Pushkaran and Others

Sri.R.M.Joshy Vs Sri.Pushkaran and Others