Allowed

Bindu Sachin v. Rageesh

Kerala HC21 Oct 2021MACA/1499/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calicut Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Enhanced compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the legal heirs of a deceased motorcyclist from Rs. 6.45 lakhs to Rs. 15.18 lakhs, applying various Supreme Court precedents related to dependency income and head-wise compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,17,869/- with balance Rs. 8,73,000/- granted as enhanced compensation payable by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company.

Bindu Sachin Vs Rageesh — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 1499 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 588/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 BINDU SACHIN, W/O.(LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

2 ALEENA SACHIN (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS D.O.B. 20-3-97, D/O.(LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

3 ABHIREKH SACHIN(MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS D.O.B. 22-12-98, S/O.(LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

4 ARSHA SACHIN (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS D.O.B. 29-3-2001, D/O. (LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

(PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN)

¶13

BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 RAGEESH, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT RAGINI NIVAS, THARACHAPPALLITHAZHAM P.O., MARIKUNNU, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE-673012.

¶16

2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, SILVER PLAZA BUILDING, I.G. ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶17

¶18

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶19

3 THANKAM, W/O. SOLAMAN, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE-673024.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.LAL.K.JOSEPH, SC

¶21

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The legal heirs of Sachidananda Prabhu,

¶26

who died in consequence of a motor accident occurred on 14.04.2011 at about 6:40 p.m while he was riding his motor cycle through the Mavoor–Medical College road, had filed petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/arraying the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle as respondents. The mother of the deceased, another dependent, got arrayed as the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

The 3^rd respondent was set ex-parte by the Tribunal. The 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company filed a statement and admitted the policy but the amount of compensation was disputed being on higher side.

¶28

The Tribunal has not adduced any oral evidence. Acting on Exts.A1 to A5 series,

¶29

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶30

documents marked on the side of the petitioner, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,44,869/- as against the claim of

¶31

Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel

¶33

for the appellants/petitioners that the monthly

¶34

income claimed by the appellants to the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- being Centring worker, was not considered by the Tribunal, for want of evidence.

¶35

The learned counsel submitted that

¶36

following the ratio in Ramachandrappa v.

¶37

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India

¶38

Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2014) 2 SCC 735,

¶39

Rs.8,000/- ought to be fixed as monthly income. Since the submission appears to be correct in

¶40

view of the above decisions, the learned

¶41

counsel for the Insurance Company also not

¶42

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶43

¶44

seriously opposed the said contention. Similarly, following the ratio in National

¶45

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 25% addition also required to be made to the monthly income. The age of the deceased is not a matter of dispute. Therefore, the submission also appears to be correct.

¶46

dependency income granted by the Tribunal requires modification. Thus, the same is recalculated as:

¶47

8000+25% = 10,000x12x14x¾ = 12,60,000/-.

¶48

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶49

the appellants further that only Rs.10,000/alone was granted under the head 'loss of consortium', though appellants 1 to 4 and respondent no.3 are entitled to get consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Following the

¶50

ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram : 2018 ACJ 2782, the

¶51

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶52

¶53

submission appears to be correct. Therefore, the appellants and the 3^rd respondent jointly entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- under this head. Reducing Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal, Rs.1,90,000/- more, is granted under this head. Coming to the other heads, Rs.5,000/- alone was granted under the head 'funeral expenses'. In fact the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. Similarly, Rs.10,000/- alone was granted under the head 'loss of estate' though the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under this head. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- more under this head also is granted by applying the ratio in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Coming to grant of 'pain and suffering', Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal, is not entitled by appellants following the ratio in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur and others : 2020 (3)

¶54

KHC 760 and, therefore, the said amount is

¶55

¶56

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶57

reduced. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.8,73,000/- more as compensation in addition to the amount of Rs.6,44,869/- granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount of compensation would be 8,73,000 + 6,44,869 = 15,17,869/-.

¶58

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is held that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,17,869/- as compensation out of which Rs.6,44,869/- was granted by the

¶59

Tribunal and the balance amount of

¶60

Rs.8,73,000/is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal payable by the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company.

¶61

The appellants valued the claim at Rs.10,00,000/- and court fee payable is calculated as Rs.9,373/-. In view of grant of

¶62

Rs.5,17,869/- in excess of the claim, the

¶63

appellants are bound to deposit Rs.5,180/- as additional court fee. The Insurance Company is

¶64

M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013

¶65

directed to deposit Rs.5,180/- as additional court fee by a separate cheque in favour of M.A.C.T.

¶66

The remaining amount shall be deposited in the name of appellants in the proportion fixed by the Tribunal within two months. On deposit, the appellants are entitled to release the same.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

¶69

Bindu Sachin v. Rageesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Sachin v. Rageesh

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

Vishnu v Devan Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shajimon Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Ammini Aravindakshan Vs Sajith

Bindu Vs the Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Jameela Vs C.H.Nagendra Rao

Alaivi Haji Vs Shoukkathali