Dismissed

Safiya v. Bijoy

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/1575/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's quantum of compensation. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of Rs.16,02,000/-, rejecting the appellants' claim that the deceased's employment as a driver abroad justified a higher income figure due to lack of supporting documents. The decision relied on principles from National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pran

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the valuation of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was dismissed.

Safiya Vs Bijoy — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1348/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1MRS.SAFIYA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. KHALID, ALANKARATHPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEDUMKANAM DESOM, KARUMTHARA VILLAGE AND P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 123

¶9

2MRS. SABEENA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O. KHALID AND W/O. YUSUF, POOVATTU HOUSE,
NEDUMKANAM DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE AND P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 123

¶10

3MR. MUNEER
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. KHALID, ALANKARATHPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEDUMKANAM DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE AND P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 123

¶11

BY ADV V.BINOY RAM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1MR.BIJOY
S/O. BALAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NORTH PULLUT DESOM, KODUNGALLUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 663

¶14

2MR. UNNIKRISHNAN
S/O. KARUNAKARAN, CHEMMATTIL (VADASSERY) HOUSE,
NARAYANAMANGALAM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 663

¶15

3THE MANAGER
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,
SOUTH INDIA, NEAR LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, KODUNGALLUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 664

¶16

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

BY ADV SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is submitted by the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1348/2015 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The aforesaid claim petition is filed by the petitioners who are the mother and siblings of one Rafeek, who died due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred on 05.09.2015. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by an autorickshaw driven by the 2^nd respondent. The aforesaid autorickshaw was owned by the 1^st respondent and was insured with the 3^rd respondent. It was contended that the deceased was employed in Gulf as a driver and the monthly income claimed was Rs.50,000/-. As compensation, an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs was claimed.

¶24

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents did not appear and accordingly they were set ex-parte. The 3^rd respondent insurance company filed a written statement disputing the negligence and quantum of compensation claimed. However, the insurance company has admitted the coverage of insurance policy in respect of the vehicle involved.

¶25

The evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A12. No oral evidence was adduced by either parties.

¶26

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due the negligence of the 2^nd respondent and being insurer of the said autorickshaw, the 3^rd respondent insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.16,02,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs and two thousand only).

¶29

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the present appeal is filed.

¶30

Heard Sri.V.Binoy Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.R.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants seriously contends that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is pointed out that the specific case of the appellants is that the deceased was working as a driver in Gulf country and he relies on the entries contained in Ext.A11 passport. In such circumstances, it was pointed out that the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company would point out that even though it was claimed that the appellant was employed abroad as a driver no documents such as driving license authorising him to drive the vehicle abroad or the bank statement

¶32

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

were produced to prove the avocation or income. In such circumstances,

¶35

it was pointed out that no interference is warranted.

¶36

When going through the materials available on record, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the insurance company. It is evident from the observations made by the Tribunal in the award itself that as per Ext.A11, the deceased had left India only in the month of February 2015 and he came back on 24^th August, 2015. The same indicates a very shorter duration at abroad. The appellants could not produce the driving license of the deceased authorizing him to drive the vehicle abroad, even though it was contended that he was engaged as a driver by profession. In the absence of a driving license which enables the deceased to drive the vehicle at Oman, where he was claimed to be working, it cannot be concluded that he was working as a driver. Even for proving that he was actually employed at Oman there are no documents available. This aspect has got significance in view of the fact that duration of his stay in Oman is very short. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and requires no interference.

¶37

MACA NO. 1575 OF 2019

¶38

¶39

With regard to the other heads also, it is discernible from the records that the Tribunal has awarded amounts in tune with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd.

¶40

v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)].

¶41

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions

¶42

put forward by the appellants and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶44

scs

Safiya v. Bijoy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiya v. Bijoy

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

Bindu John Vs State of Kerala

Joosa Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Saji K. Babu Vs Shaheer Ali A.K

Rajesh K Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

Josy Paul Akkara Vs the Manager