Partly allowed

Asharafali v. Raman Alias Raman Master

Kerala HC15 Dec 2021MACA/1688/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In High Court of Kerala Maca Nos. 2375 and 1688 of 2014, the single bench of Justice T.R. Ravi allowed the insurer's appeal partly, holding in principle that no balance amount payable from the Tribunal within 2 months as per law, the award of the Tribunal was modified by deducting a sum of Rs.75,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Award of Tribunal modified by deducting Rs. 75,000/-; appellant to deposit balance compensation within 2 months.

Asharafali Vs Raman Alias Raman Master — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 15 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 2375 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 800/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶7

TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM

¶8

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶12

1 RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN MASTER S/O.AYYAPPAN AND WIDOWER OF LEELA (DECEASED) MAKKADATH HOUSE, KUTHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALATHUR, NOW RESIDING AT MAKKADATH HOUSE, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, P.O.PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505. 2 ARUN S/O.RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN MASTER AND LEELA (DECEASED) MAKKADATH HOUSE, KUTHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALATHUR NOW RESIDING AT MAKKADATH HOUSE, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, P.O.,PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505.

¶13

3 ABHILASH S/O.RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN MASTER AND LEELA (DECEASED), MAKKADATH HOUSE, KUTHANRUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALATHUR NOW RESIDING AT MAKKADATH HOUSE, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, P.O.,PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1688/2014, THE COURT ON 15.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375

& 1688 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶22

WEDNESDAY,THE 15 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶23

MACA NO. 1688 OF 2014

¶24

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 800/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM

¶25

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶26

1 ASHARAFALI S/O. MARAKAR, KALIYATH HOUSE, NO. 1/241, VENDALLUR P.O, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

¶27

2 RAMAN ALIAS RAMAKRISHNAN S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PARAKKAL @ PARAKKALPADY HOUSE, AMAYUR P.O, PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 310.

¶28

BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY

¶29

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 4TH RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN MASTER AGED 56 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, MAKKADATH HOUSE, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶31

2 ARUN S/O. RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN MASTER, MAKKADATH HOUSE, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶32

3 ABHILASH AGED 26 YEARS S/O. RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN MASTER, MAKKADATH HOUSE, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE P.O.,

¶33

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375 & 1688 of 2014

¶34

¶35

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶36

4 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, PEEVEES BUILDING, KUTTIPURA ROAD, VALANCHERY, P.O. MALAPPURAMK - 676 552.

¶37

R4 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶38

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.09.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.2375/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375

& 1688 of 2014

T.R. RAVI, J.

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375 & 1688 of 2014

¶44

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2021

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The above appeals have been filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in OP(MV)No.800 of 2011. M.A.C.A.No.1688 of 2014 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. M.A.C.A.No.2375 of 2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company who was the 3^rd respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are referred to in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.

¶47

On 8.4.2011, when the 1^st claimant's wife who was waiting for a bus in the bus stand at Pattambi, was hit by a bus driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in her death. The deceased was aged 60 years and was a retired High School teacher earning monthly pension. Exhibits A7 and A9 which were produced to prove the income, would respectively show that the deceased was getting a pension of Rs.8,350/- and Rs.12,256/-. The Tribunal accepted the amount of Rs.12,256/- shown in Exhibit A9. The 1^st claimant is the husband of the deceased and the claimants 2 and 3 are the children. The 2^nd claimant is a mentally challenged person who did not have a job and

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375

& 1688 of 2014

was depending on the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. The 3^rd respondent had contended before the Tribunal that the 2^nd respondent did not have a driving license at the time of the accident. I.A.No.2185 of 2013 had been filed before the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the driving license of the 2^nd respondent. The counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the 2^nd respondent did not have a driving license. Exhibit A5 charge sheet would also show that the 2^nd respondent did not have a driving license. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal permitted the 3^rd respondent to realise the compensation awarded with interest and cost from the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,12,450/- as compensation.

¶52

M.A.C.A.No.1688 of 2014 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, challenging the award on the ground that the Tribunal should not have permitted the 3^rd respondent to realise the amount awarded from the owner and driver solely for the reason that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license. There is no merit in the said contention and the same is rejected. Another contention that is raised is that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation on the basis of a monthly income of Rs.8,350/- and not Rs.12,256/-. The said contention

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375

& 1688 of 2014

is also not legally sustainable. It can be seen from Exhibit A9 which has been issued from the Sub Treasury Office, Pulamanthole, that the pension amount of Rs.8,350/- was the pension fixed on 3.6.2005 at the time of the retirement of the deceased. The amount of pension has undergone changes during the subsequent years and it is seen that from January 2011, the pension that was being paid was Rs.12,256/-. The finding of the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased does not hence require any interference.

¶57

M.A.C.A.No.2375 of 2014 has been filed by the 3^rd respondent insurer, challenging the quantum of the compensation. A contention similar to the one taken by the respondents 1 and 2 regarding the monthly income has been taken by the 3^rd respondent also, but for the reasons aforesaid, the said contention is rejected. Another contention that is taken is that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is excessive. The Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs.2 lakhs under the above two heads. In my opinion, the appellants will be entitled to get Rs.1,20,000/-(40000x3) under the above two heads and hence a sum of Rs.80,000/- has to be deducted from the total compensation awarded. Another contention that is raised is that one half of the income should have been considered as

¶58

the contribution of the deceased to the family and the other one half should have been treated as amount used for personal expenses of the

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375

& 1688 of 2014

deceased treating it is a case of one dependent. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sujatha P. and others v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in [2017(5) KHC 568]

¶63

to submit that what is material is not the number of legal representatives, but the number of persons actually dependent on the deceased. The claimants have a specific case that the elder son of the deceased was mentally challenged and had stopped education at the pre-degree level and that he is not employed and was dependent on his mother. The above dependency was not merely financial dependency. The 1^st claimant was examined as PW1 and he has spoken to the above aspects and there is nothing in the cross examination to discredit his version. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that one third alone need to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶64

The next contention of the 3^rd respondent is that the amount awarded towards funeral expenses as Rs.25,000/- should have been Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- has been awarded in excess. The above submission is justified and the amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted. At the same time, it can be seen from the award that the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of estate. An amount of Rs.15,000/- ought to have been awarded towards loss of estate. The award of the Tribunal has to be modified in terms of the above findings.

¶65

M.A.C.A.Nos.2375 & 1688 of 2014

¶66

¶67

In the result M.A.C.A.No.1688 of 2014 is dismissed.

¶68

M.A.C.A.No.2375 of 2014 is allowed in part. The award of the Tribunal is modified by deducting a sum of Rs.75,000/- (80000+10000-15000) from the total compensation. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.2375 of 2014 shall deposit the balance amount payable as compensation, as modified in this appeal, before the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The disbursement of the compensation to the claimant shall be in accordance with law.

¶69

Sd/- T.R. RAVI JUDGE

¶70

dsn

Asharafali v. Raman Alias Raman Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asharafali v. Raman Alias Raman Master

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

Hajara Ibrahim Vs the Kozhikode Corporation

K.O.Abraham Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

P.N. Chandran Vs the Village Officer

Suresh.S., Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Sinan (Minor) Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Biju Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.