Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Seena

Kerala HC18 Sept 2018MACA/667/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal in a motor accident death claim. While accepting the appellant's arguments regarding the dependency fraction and multiplier, the Court found no need to reduce the total compensation due to other inadequacies in the award heads. The punitive interest clause was struck down.

What did the court decide?

Interest scaled down to 7.5% per annum; Total compensation not reduced; Appellant directed to rework figure.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Seena — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 27TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 667 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 204/2009 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED 0109-2011

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,RM.G.ROAD,KOCHI-11.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 SEENA

¶12

W/O.LATE BABU.P.T,PUSHPATH HOUSE,THAIAKATTUKARA,RALUVA WEST VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683101.

¶13

2 THANKAPPAN PUSHPATH HOUSE,THAIAKATTUKARA,ALUVA WEST VILLAGE,RERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683101.

¶14

3 GEETHA W/O.THANKAPPAN,PUSHPATH HOUSE,THAIAKATTUKARA,ALUVARWEST VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-68301.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.667/2012

JUDGMENT

Insurer of the offending motorcycle is the appellant before this Court. Grievance is mainly against the awarding of amounts in excess, without proper regard to the actual facts and figures.

¶21

2. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, the senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.Mohammed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

¶22

3. The motor cycle ridden by the deceased collided with another motorcycle bearing No.KL-7/AH-9662, insured with the appellant, causing fatal injuries, which ultimately resulted in the death of the rider of the latter motorcycle. This led to the claim petition preferred by the widow and parents of the deceased. It was contended that the deceased was serving as an engineering worker with a monthly salary of 6,000/-,₹ which was accepted by the Tribunal as reasonable as brought out in evidence as per Annexure A8 salary certificate and A9 income certificate. After appreciating the relevant facts and figures, a total sum of

¶23

M.A.C.A.667/2012

¶24

¶25

₹9,18,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal requiring

¶26

the Insurance Company to have it satisfied with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum, within a period of one month, failing which interest was to run at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition.

¶27

4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant

¶28

submits that the challenge raised by the Insurance Company is mainly on three counts. Firstly, that the Tribunal deducted the income only by '¼' while fixing the dependency; which actually is to be '¹ /3' in view of the settled position of law; as there are only three claimants. After hearing both the sides, this Court is of the view that the position pointed out by the learned

¶29

counsel for the appellant is correct and liable to be accepted. However, whether such course is necessary in the instant case will be considered in the due course, in the following paragraphs.

¶30

5. The next ground is that the deceased was aged 39 years and as such, the appropriate multiplier is '15' and not 16. Here also, going by the settled legal provisions

¶31

M.A.C.A.667/2012

¶32

¶33

and precedents, this Court finds considerable force in the said submission made by the learned senior counsel.

¶34

6. The third contention is with regard to the interest awarded by the Tribunal, that is @ 8% per annum from the date of petition with a default clause to the effect that if the amount due is not satisfied within one month, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition. The learned counsel submits that 50% of the amount has been satisfied pursuant to interim order passed by this Court. Since the right of appeal is a statutory right, more so, in view of the verdict passed by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd.v. Shila Datta & Others [AIR 2012 SC 86], this Court finds that the 'punitive interest' awarded by the Tribunal is not liable to be sustained and hence the same has to be scaled down.

¶35

7. As mentioned already, the main point to be considered is whether any interference is necessary, even if the contentions raised by the appellant as aforesaid are liable to be given effect to. The amounts

¶36

M.A.C.A.667/2012

¶37

¶38

awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are given

¶39

in paragraph 12 of the award are reproduced below:

¶40

Heads	Amount claimed	Amount awarded
Loss of dependency	14,40,00 0	8,64,000	(6000x12x3/4^th x16)
Transport and expenses	1,000	1,000
Funeral Expenses	3,000	3,000
Compensation for pain and sufferings	1,00,000	5,000
Compensation for	Not	25,000
loss of love and affection	claimed
Compensation for loss of consortium	Not claimed	20,000
TOTAL		9,18,000
Other claims disallowed

¶41

8. It is seen that only a sum of 3,000/- has been₹ awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses. Going by the verdict passed by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited.v.Pranay Sethi [(2017) 5 KHC 350 (SC)]; it has to be at a uniform rate of ₹15,000/-. Thus, there is a deficit of ₹12,000/- under this head. Even in a case of death, conventional amount of

¶42

M.A.C.A.667/2012

¶43

¶44

₹15,000/- could be paid under the head pain and sufferings, whereas, in the instant case the amount awarded by the Tribunal is only 5,000/-; which results₹ in a balance of 10,000/-.₹ Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded only ₹20,000/-, which ought to have been 40,000/- in view of the ruling rendered in₹ Pranay Sethi (supra), thus resulting in a further deficit of ₹20,000/-. Towards the loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 25,000/-,₹ which could have been ₹80,000/- (40,000+40,000) in view of the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018 (where it has been termed as 'filial consortium' involving love and affection, care and other relevant factors); in turn resulting in a deficit of ₹55,000/-. From the above, it is clear that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under some of the heads are quite inadequate, which requires to be enhanced. Considering the said amount on one hand and the amount to be deducted towards the dependency

¶45

M.A.C.A.667/2012 7

¶46

compensation (substituting the extent as '¹ /3rd^{' in place} of '¼^th' towards personal expenses) and also on substituting the multiplier as '15' instead of '16', there may not be much difference between the 'just' compensation payable and the compensation actually awarded by the Tribunal, so as to warrant interference of this Court. That apart, in cases of this nature, amounts cannot be awarded in golden scale and some flexibility can be there. This being the position, this Court does not find it as a fit case to effect any deduction in the total amount awarded by the Tribunal, though the legal position pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant stands accepted.

¶47

9. However, coming to the question of interest, this Court is the firm view that the amount due, is required to be satisfied with interest only @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal and the punitive rate, if the amount awarded was not satisfied within one month, stands modified as above. The appellant/Insurance Company is

¶48

M.A.C.A.667/2012

¶49

¶50

directed to rework the figure and after giving credit to the sum already deposited, the balance shall be satisfied, at the earliest, at any rate within one month

¶51

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Appeal stands disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶55

JUDGE

¶56