Dismissed

P.P.Peter v. Prasanthakumar.K.v

Kerala HC18 Nov 2021MACA/1616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal against an Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court held that under Section 163A read with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must be awarded strictly by the structured formula based on notional monthly income, and additional conventional heads were not permissible as prayed by the appellant-compounders.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Award of the Tribunal was upheld.

P.P.Peter Vs Prasanthakumar.K.v — Insurance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

¶6

MACA NO. 1616 OF 2013

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.10.2012 IN OP(MV)NO.558/2010 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 P.P.PETER, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY.

¶10

2 SALIMMA.T.T, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.P.P.PETER, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY.

¶11

3 PRINCYMOL PETER, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.P.P.PETER, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY.

¶12

4 PRIYAMOL PETER, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.P.P.PETER, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW
 SRI.D.SREENATH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

1 PRASANTHAKUMAR.K.V, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALLICHERY, VAIPUR, ANICADU, MALLAPALLY EAST, PIN-689 584.

¶16

2 THOMAS ANTONY, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURISUMOODU.P.O.,

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1616/2013

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

CHANGANACHERRY. PIN-686 104.
3MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
POLACHIRA BUILDINGS,
K.K.ROAD, COLLECTORATE.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 002.
4KOCHUMON,
S/O.VAVACHAN,
KULANGARA HOUSE, CHEERAMCHIRA,
VEROOR.P.O. 686 104,
CHANGANACHERRY.
5ABILASH
ATTICHIRA HOUSE,
PERUNNA,
CHANGANACHERRY. PIN-686 102.
BY ADVS.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.1616/2013

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of November,2021

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The appellants were the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.558/2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶26

The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short, 'Act'), claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri. Princemon Peter(deceased) – the son of the appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of the appellants 3 and 4. It was their case that, on 17.01.2009, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-33-5806 from Changanacherry to Kanjirappally, when he reached the place named Veroor Industrial Estate pady, a bus bearing registration No.KL-5/P-3221(bus), driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner,

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.1616/2013

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

hit the motorcycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and lost his life. The bus belonged to the second respondent and was insured with the third respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 were the rider and owner of the motorcycle. The deceased was a painter by profession. The appellants were the dependants of the deceased. Hence, they claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

¶30

The respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte.

¶31

The third respondent-insurer had filed a written, inter alia, contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. The third respondent disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the appellants was highly excessive.

¶32

The appellants produced and marked Exts.A1 to A9 in evidence. The third respondent produced

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.1616/2013

¶34

-:5:-

¶35

Ext.B1 insurance policy and marked it in evidence.

¶36

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellants to recover from the third respondent an amount of Rs.3,88,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate cost.

¶37

Dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶38

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.

¶39

Heard; Sri. Josekutty Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶40

The principle grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:

¶41

(i) the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, instead of Rs.4,500/-;

¶42

(ii) the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the conventional

¶43

M.A.C.A.No.1616/2013

¶44

-:6:-

¶45

heads and as pecuniary damages.

¶46

Ground No.(i)&(ii)

¶47

Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, compensation can only be awarded under the structured formula under the Second Schedule of the Act.

¶48

The Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/and awarded compensation as per the structured formula in the Second Schedule.

¶49

If the contention of the appellants raised before this Court is to be accepted, i.e., to fix the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, then claim itself under Sections 163A of the Act is unsustainable in law.

¶50

Similarly, in Clause (iii) of the Second

¶51

M.A.C.A.No.1616/2013

¶52

-:7:-

¶53

Schedule, the maximum amount of compensation payable under the conventional heads has been provided.

¶54

On a re-appreciation of the impugned award, it is seen that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation based on the structured formula under the Second Schedule. The appellants cannot aspire for anything further than what is prescribed under the Second Schedule in a claim under Section 163A. I do not find any error or illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Hence,I answer Ground Nos.(i) and (2) against the appellants.

¶55

The appeal is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

¶58

//True copy/ P.A.To Judge

¶59

DST/18.11.2021

P.P.Peter v. Prasanthakumar.K.v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Peter v. Prasanthakumar.K.v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Beena

Subran Vs Jyothibhas

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

Ginosh Venu Vs Johnson and Anothers

Narayanan Nair Vs O.T.Vijayan

Muhammad Ali K.M Vs Ahammad Ali