Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R Saradamani

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018MACA/682/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court of Kerala reduced the total compensation awarded to the wife of a deceased pedestrian by Rs 1,00,000. The Court overruled excessive awards for dependency, consortium, and funeral expenses while adding compensation for loss of estate and love and affection.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation awarded by the tribunal in favour of the respondent shall stand reduced by Rs 1,00,000/-.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R Saradamani — Motor Accident Claims | 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 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 682 of 2015

¶6

OP(MV) 224/2008 of MACT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 31-07-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN(SR) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

¶11

R SARADAMANI, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MALIKA KADAVU HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM, ALANGAD VILLAGE-683 511

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MONY

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

A.M.BABU, J.

¶15

- - - - M.A.C.A.682 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 20^th June, 2018

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

1.The accident was on 7.12.2007. A person by name Gopinathan Nair died in the accident. He was a pedestrian. He was knocked down by a car. The accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The car was insured with the appellant. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶19

2.Heard Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.C.Mony, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

The insurer is in appeal disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Gopinathan Nair was an agriculturist. He was 75 years old at the time of his death.

¶21

MACA.682/2015

¶22

¶23

Therefore the multiplier is 5. The respondent claimed that her husband Gopinathan Nair had a monthly income of Rs 5,000/-. That claim was accepted by the tribunal. The tribunal while calculating the compensation for loss of dependency did not deduct any amount considering the personal expenses of Gopinathan Nair. He was survived by his wife alone. Therefore one-third of the income should be deducted towards the personal expenses. That was not done by the tribunal. The amount to which the respondent is entitled to as compensation for loss of dependency works out to Rs 1,99,980/- (5000 minus 1/3^rd of it = 3333; 3333 x 12 x 5 = 1,99,980). The tribunal awarded Rs 3,00,000/-. There was an excess of Rs 1,00,020/-.

¶24

The supreme court holds in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017 (5) KHC 350) that the proper compensation for loss of estate shall be Rs 15,000/- and for loss of

¶25

MACA.682/2015

¶26

¶27

consortium shall be Rs 40,000/-. It was also held that the funeral expenses to be awarded shall be Rs 15,000/-. The tribunal awarded Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium. It shall come down to Rs 40,000/-. There has been an excess of Rs 60,000/-. The funeral expenses awarded by the tribunal was also excess by Rs 10,000/-. That should also be deducted.

¶28

But the tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of estate. The respondent is entitled to Rs 15,000/- as held in Pranay Sethi (supra). No compensation was awarded for loss of love and affection. A poor lady who was without a child lost her husband at the age of 62 years. Despite that fact the tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of love and affection. I find it appropriate to award Rs 55,000/- under the said head.

¶29

¶30

MACA.682/2015

¶31

6.The tribunal awarded Rs 1,70,020/- in excess under three heads (1,00,020 + 60,000 + 10,000). But the tribunal did not award proper compensation under the heads loss of love and affection and loss of estate. Under those two heads the respondent was entitled to Rs 70,000/- (55,000 + 15,000). The amount of Rs 70,000/- shall be deducted from the amount of Rs 1,70,020/-. The amount arrived at is Rs 1,00,020/-. It can be rounded to 1,00,000/-.

¶32

7.The appeal is allowed as follows. The total compensation awarded by the tribunal in favour of the respondent shall stand reduced by Rs 1,00,000/- (one lakh only).

Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/21.6.

/True copy/

P.S.To Judge

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R Saradamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R Saradamani

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

Shoukathali Vs C.K.Ramankutty

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mariyamma Daniel

Manzoorali Vs P.v.Aboobacker

Ayoob Vs Siyarali

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

The United India India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramesh