Allowed

M.K. Kallyani v. Muhammed Rafi

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018MACA/422/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowing enhancement of compensation. The Court enhanced the loss of dependency and added loss of filial consortium based on Supreme Court precedents, raising the total from Rs. 2,17,000 to Rs. 8,42,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; compensation is enhanced to a total of Rs. 8,42,000 with interest and costs.

M.K. Kallyani Vs Muhammed Rafi — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 422 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO.764/2005 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY DATED 31-01-2011

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 M.K. KALLYANI W/O.LATE NARAYANAN, AGED 67 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563.

¶9

2 M.K.JAYASREE D/O.M.K.KALLYANI, AGED 49 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563. 3 M.K.JAYANTHI D/O.M.K.KALLYANI, AGED 45 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563.

¶10

4 M.K.LEKHA D/O.KALLYANI, AGED 43 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563.

¶11

5 M.K.LALITHA D/O.M.K.KALLYANI, AGED 41 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563. 6 M.K.RAJITHA D/O.M.K.KALLYANI, AGED 39 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563.

MACA.No. 422 of 2012

7 M.K.RAJANI

D/O.M.K.KALLYANI, AGED 32 YEARS, MOOLAKOYYOTTU HOUSE, KUNDATHIL, PARASSINIKKADAVU.P.O, ANTHOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670563.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.J.ABHILASH SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶18

1 MUHAMMED RAFI S/O.M.ABDU, AGED 34 YEARS, SEERAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYILHOUSE, MANNA, NEAR CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, TALIPARAMBAAMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.

¶19

2 K.T.ABDUL SATHAR S/O.IBRAHIM, KUNDUVALAPPIL THACHNKANDY HOUSE, NALAMPEEDIKA, KOLACHERI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670601.

¶20

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PAYYANNUR-670307.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶22

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The mother and sister of the deceased, in a road traffic accident, is before this Court claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased was riding a motor bike when it hit with a jeep, which was covered by a valid insurance policy. The Tribunal found the

¶25

jeep driver to be negligent. There was also no allegation of violation of terms of policy. The appeal is confined to the enhancement of compensation.

¶26

2. The deceased claimed to be an electrical

¶27

worker. A certificate of one electrical contractor was also produced as Ext.A3. The certificate does not indicate any income of the deceased. The claimants asserted that the deceased had an income of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted Rs.3,000/-. In any event, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had found Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income of a coolie in the year 2004 in Ramachandrappa v.

¶28

MACA.No. 422 of 2012

¶29

¶30

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. Hence the claim of the appellants that the deceased had an income of Rs.5,000/- can be accepted especially looking at the fact that he had proved his skilled employment by Ext.A3 certificate.

¶31

3. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 5 taking the age of the mother, which is not proper. The multiplier to be applied is that of the deceased, which will be 17 in this case, where the deceased was aged 30 years. Further, on loss of filial consortium the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Ram & Others [CDJ 2018 SC 958] held that the parents also are entitled to compensation at Rs.40,000/-. But since Rs.20,000/- has been granted under love and affection the enhancement will be confined to Rs.20,000/-. Over and above these, there shall also be enhancement on the various heads as has

¶32

MACA.No. 422 of 2012

¶33

¶34

been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶35

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

¶36

and Others [2017 (5) KHC 350] as tabulated below:

¶37

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal `	Total amount after enhancement in appeal`
1	Transportation expenses	1000	1000
2	Pain and suffering	15000	15000
3	Loss of dependency	120000	714000 *[700012171/2]**
4	Loss of love and affection i. to the 1^stpetitioner	20000	20000
	i. to petitioners 2 to 7	42000	42000
5	Loss of estate	10000	15000
6	Funeral expenses	9000	15000
7	Loss of filial consortium	---	20000
	Total	217000	842000