Partly allowed

Subran v. Jyothibhas

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021MACA/1293/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of a coolie worker. The High Court fixed the notional income at Rs.3,300/- per month and enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,44,500/- to Rs.4,12,500/- under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded at Rs.4,12,500/- with interest and costs, directed to be deposited by the insurer.

Subran Vs Jyothibhas — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1499/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

1 SUBRAN, S/O THEVAN, KADAMBADAN HOUSE, THRIPPAPILLY, PARIYARAM THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2 THANKA, W/O SUBRAN,DO-----------------DO----------DO.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 JYOTHIBHAS, S/O V.V. VIJAYAN, VIKRENCHERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH, P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.680506

¶15

2 SHIBU CHAKKUNNY, S/O CHAKKUNNY, PULLOKKARAN HOUSE, KONNAKUZHY, PARIYARAM, THRISSUR.680506

¶16

3 THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-110001

¶17

BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellants were the petitioners in OP(MV) No.1499/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶23

The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Krishnan (deceased), the son of the appellants. It was their case that, on 09.09.2007, while the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 8D 3067 along the ChalakkudyAthirappilly road, a car bearing registration No.KL 46/A 317 (car), driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and instantaneously lost his life. The 1^st respondent was the owner and the 3^rd respondent was the insurer of the car. The deceased was a coolie worker by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,300/-. Hence, the appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.5,16,000/- from the respondents, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶24

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012

¶25

¶26

The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex-parte.

¶27

The 3^rd respondent had filed a written statement, contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The 3^rd respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased. However, the 3^rd respondent had admitted that the car had a valid insurance coverage.

¶28

The appellants produced and marked Exts.A1 to A4 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

¶29

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellants to recover from the 3^rd respondent an amount of Rs.2,44,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate cost.

¶30

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.

¶31

Heard; Sri. Manoj T.N., the learned counsel appearing

¶32

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012 4

¶33

for the appellants/petitioners, Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent/insurer 9. The question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

¶34

Negligence

¶35

As the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of negligence need not be looked into as per law laid down in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sunilkumar [2014 (4) KLT 1093 SC].

¶36

Income

¶37

The appellants had claimed that the deceased was aged 28 years on the date of his death, that he was a coolie worker by profession and he was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,300/-. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, for want of material, fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-.

¶38

In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. :[ (2011) 13

¶39

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012

¶40

¶41

SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶42

Following the yardstick in the afore-cited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2007 and that the petitioners had claimed that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,300/-, I fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/- per month, as claimed in the claim petition.

¶43

As per the Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prior to the 2018 amendment, the total compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased person in the age group of 25 and 30 with annual income of Rs.36,000/- is Rs.6,12,000/-. Out of the said amount, one third has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- is to be paid as per the structured formula in the Second Schedule. Likewise, an amount of Rs.2,000/- has to be paid towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the total amount of compensation payable under

¶44

MACA NO. 1293 OF 2012

¶45

¶46

the Second Schedule for a person aged 28 years with an income of Rs.36,000/- is Rs.4,12,500/-. I hold that the appellants are entitled to the above amount as compensation, instead of Rs.2,44,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

In the result the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,68,000/- with interest on the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The 3^rd respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the above amount to the appellants in equal shares and in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶50

rkc

Subran v. Jyothibhas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subran v. Jyothibhas

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

K.Ashraf Vs Basheer.M

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sivadasan and Others

Antony Vs Denny Jacob and 2 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Beena

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs K.Sunilkumera and Another

Ajithkumar Vs Ullasan