Partly allowed

United Insurance Company v. Menaka

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018MACA/943/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Pertaining to a fatal accident, the court increased the monthly income considered for dependency compensation from Rs.1,800 to Rs.4,000 and recalculated the total compensation enhancement following National Insurance Co. verses Pranay Sethi guidelines, granting additional interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.3,95,500 with 9% interest granted; insurer to pay within 30 days with 12% default interest.

United Insurance Company Vs Menaka — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 943 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 131/2002 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 2404-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER

¶10

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶11

1 MENAKA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRAN (LATE), EDASSERI HOUSE,, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE,, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶12

2 RAHUL, S/O. SURENDRAN EDASSERI HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶13

3 KRISHNADAS, S/O. SURENDRAN EDASSERI HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶14

4 RAVUNNI, F/O. SURENDRAN EDASSERI HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶15

5 KAMALAKSHY, M/O. SURENDRAN EDASSERI HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶16

6 P.C. ROY, S/O. CHACKO, PATHIYAMKUZHY HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O.,, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶17

7 MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR EDAPPALLY HOUSE, MANAKODI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.ANEESH(B/O,NO MEMO) SRI.K.M.ANEESHBONO MEMO SRI.V.BINOY RAM

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.2946/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

MACA.Nos.943 & 2946 of 2008

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶25

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶26

MACA.No. 2946 of 2008

¶27

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 131/2002 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 24-04-2007

¶28

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶29

1 MENAKA, W/O.LATE SURENDRAN, EDASSERI HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE,, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶30

2 RAHUL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.LATE SURENDRAN, -DO-DO-

¶31

3 KRISHNADAS, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.LATE SURENDRAN, -DO- -DO-

¶32

4 RAVUNNI, F/O.LATE SURENDRAN -DO- -DO

¶33

5 KAMALAKSHY, M/O.LATE SURENDRAN -DO- -DO-

¶34

BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM

¶35

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 P.C.ROY, S/O.CHACKO, PATHIYAMKUZHI HOUSE,, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O.,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶37

2 K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,, EDAPPILLY HOUSE, MANAKKODI,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶38

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶39

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

¶40

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.943/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

MACA.Nos.943 & 2946 of 2008

¶42

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

These appeals are preferred against the award in O.P.(MV)No. 131/2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. M.A.C.A No.2946/2008 was preferred by the dependants of the deceased Surendran and M.A.C.A No.943/2008 was preferred by the insurer. On 23.01.2001 at 6.15 pm, the deceased was travelling from Palakkad to Thrissur in a bus KL.8/D 6066, when he reached at the place of occurrence, the driver of the bus turned towards the left side, as a result the door of the bus opened and the deceased was thrown away and sustained serious injuries, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries.

¶45

The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but contended that the driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Claimants evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A8.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A.C.A No.2946/2008 contended that the deceased was an electrician and was getting Rs.4,500/- per

¶47

¶48

MACA.Nos.943 & 2946 of 2008

¶49

month. The learned Tribunal took Rs.1,800/- as the monthly income for calculating dependency compensation, which is very meagre and he is entitled to get just amount as compensation.

¶50

In M.A.C.A No.943/2008, appellant contented

¶51

that excess amount was awarded as compensation.

¶52

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 estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got

¶53

better job and earned more income also have to be considered by the tribunal.

¶54

MACA.Nos.943 & 2946 of 2008

¶55

¶56

6. Apex court in National Insurance Company

¶57

V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] held as follows:

¶58

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

¶59

(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.

¶60

(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.

¶61

(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.

¶62

(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. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶63

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for

¶64

MACA.Nos.943 & 2946 of 2008

¶65

¶66

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.

¶67

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

¶68

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶69

(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.

¶70

It is an admitted fact that the deceased was an

¶71

electrician and was getting Rs.4,500/- per month, but no evidence has been produced before court to prove the income. Considering the wages and depreciation in money value, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is just and reasonable as the monthly income for calculating dependency compensation. He was aged 43 years and the multiplier is 14. 1/4^th is to be deducted. The dependency compensation is

¶72

Rs.4,000x12x14x3/4= Rs.5,04,000/-. The learned Tribunal

¶73

awarded Rs.1,80,000/- and the balance amount is Rs.3,24,000/-. In addition to that, Rs.12,000/- is awarded

¶74

¶75

MACA.Nos.943 & 2946 of 2008

¶76

towards funeral expense and Rs.12,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.32,000/- towards loss of consortium and additional Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Appellants in M.A.C.A No.2946/2008 is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.3,95,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost in addition to the award amount. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶77

In the light of the above discussion, M.A.C.A No.943/2008 is dismissed and M.A.C.A No.2946/2008 is partly allowed.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

P.D.RAJAN JUDGE

¶80

bng/09.10.18

United Insurance Company v. Menaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Insurance Company v. Menaka

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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Renjith Kumar

Shahubanath Dileep Vs Riyas

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mikhael.M. v.

Rosamma Vs Rajeev

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Reena Hari

Fahad M.A Vs Shan A.S