Allowed

Suma Balan v. Johny M.C.

Kerala HC6 Jun 2018MACA/666/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the widow of a deceased motor accident victim. It fixed the notional monthly income at Rs. 10,000, recalculated loss of dependency, loss of estate, and adjusted funeral and consortium losses according to Pranay Sethi and Sarala Verma precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,78,000/- by the Insurance Company, carrying interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing.

Suma Balan Vs Johny M.C. — Insurance | 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 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 666 of 2015

¶6

OP(MV) 418/2013 of M.A.C.T. TIRUR DATED 12-12-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

SUMA BALAN W/O.LATE BALAN, PALAKKAL HOUSE, SRAYIKADAVU, NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH P.O., NANNAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OP(MV):

¶11

JOHNY M.C.

¶12

S/O.CHAKKUNNY, MANGAN HOUSE, VELUTHUR P.O., PARAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST., 680016.

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, 680001.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶15

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

¶16

A.M.BABU, J.

¶17

- - - - M.A.C.A.666 of 2015

¶18

- - - - Dated : 6^th June, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

1.The accident was on 1.2.2013. A person by name Balan died in the accident. While walking by the side of the road he was knocked down by a goods carriage vehicle. The cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. It was owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶21

2.Heard Sri.P.V.Chandramohan and Sri.P.M.M.Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant and the 2^nd respondent respectively.

¶22

3.Balan was survived by his wife alone. She was the claimant. She contended that her husband who was running a hotel and doing business in share market was having a monthly income of Rs 40,000/-. Certain documents were also produced to prove the income. If Balan had a monthly

¶23

MACA.666/15

¶24

¶25

income of Rs 40,000/-, certainly there must be an income-tax assessment. No income-tax return was produced to prove the monthly income of Balan to be Rs 40,000/-. Therefore the tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the claimant that her husband had a monthly income of Rs 40,000/-. What was possible for the tribunal was to take a notional income. The tribunal took it at Rs 5,000/- per month. That was indeed palpably low. The accident was in 2013. Even a daily labourer could earn in 2013 double the amount fixed by the tribunal. I find it appropriate to fix Rs 10,000/- as the notional income.

¶26

4.Balan at the time of his demise was 51 years of age. Therefore the multiplier is 11. As the notional income is refixed, the compensation for loss of dependency should be reworked. The supreme court holds in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017 (5) KHC 350) that 10% of the monthly income should be added

¶27

¶28

MACA.666/15

¶29

considering the future prospects of the person concerned in the case of persons belonging to the age group of 50 to 60. In view of Sarala verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SC 3104) one-third of the income should be deducted. The total entitlement of the appellant under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs 9,67,956/- (10,000 + 10% = 11,000 minus onethird of it = 7333; 7333 x 12 x 11 = 9,67,956/-). The amount of Rs 4,40,000/- awarded by the tribunal shall be deducted. Hence deducted. The balance is Rs 5,27,956/-. That is the enhancement.

¶30

5.The tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of estate. The appellant is entitled to Rs 15,000/- under the said head. The amount is fixed at Rs 15,000/- in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶31

6.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, the appellant was awarded by the

¶32

¶33

MACA.666/15

¶34

tribunal more than the entitlement under two heads. In Pranay Sethi (supra) it is held that the proper amount that should be awarded as funeral expenses shall be Rs 15,000/- and the compensation for loss of consortium shall be Rs 40,000/-. The tribunal awarded under those heads Rs 20,000/- and Rs 1,00,000/- respectively. There shall be a deduction of Rs 5,000/- and Rs 60,000/- respectively under those heads.

¶35

7.The figure arrived at as enhanced compensation is Rs 4,77,956/- (5,27,956 + 15,000 - 5000 - 60,000). I round it off to Rs 4,78,000/-.

¶36

8.The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The appellant is awarded Rs Rs 4,78,000/- (four lakhs seventy eight thousand only) as compensation over and above the amount awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal to the date of deposit of

¶37

MACA.666/15

¶38

the enhanced compensation before it. The 2^nd respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the tribunal together with proportionate costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/7.6.

/True copy/

P.S.To Judge

Suma Balan v. Johny M.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma Balan v. Johny M.C.

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

Udayakumar Vs the Excise Inspector

Shameer.P, Vs Shanavas.P.K

Sajeesh Vs U.K.Manoj Kumar

Vikas V.V. Vs State of Kerala

Anithakumari Vs Raveendran

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs T. Pushpa