Partly allowed

Amina Beevi v. Rejendran

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/1861/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part against an award of Rs. 9,19,000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court re-fixed compensation for loss of dependency and allowed additional amounts for loss of consortium and estate while deducting excess funds for funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 3,24,875 with 9% interest awarded to the petitioners; insurer directed to deposit before the Tribunal within two months.

Amina Beevi Vs Rejendran — Insurance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

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

¶5

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.2.2016 IN OPMV 397/2013 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM, KOLLAM

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 AMINA BEEVI,AGED 50 YEARS W/O. THANGAL KUNJU, ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK

¶10

2 ANSIYA BEEVI, AGED 30 YEARS D/O. THANGAL KUNJU ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK

¶11

3 ANWAR,AGED 24 YEARS S/O. THANGAL KUNJU ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK

¶12

4 ANSHAD,AGED 21 YEARS S/O.THANGAL KUNJU ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 RAJENDRAN, S/O. DIVAKARAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN, SASTHAMCOTTA PO.,KUNNATHOOR -690520

¶16

2 SALIH, AGED 40 S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY PUTHUMANGALATHU VEEU, PANAPATTI, SASTHAMCOTTA

¶17

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLA M.S GENERAL INSURANCE MOTOR POLICY; KOCHI BRANCH. ERNAKULAM-682016

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..2..

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The notice to the 1^st respondent is returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. The 1^st respondent in this appeal is the owner of the offending vehicle. It is admitted by the Insurer that the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Therefore, service of notice to the 1^st respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

The Appellants are the wife and children of deceased Thangal Kunju, who died in an accident on 31.10.2012. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. The deceased was driving an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No KL.24/D-2495 through Bharanikavu – Thamarakkulam public road and it collided with an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-61/542, driven by the 2^nd respondent and the deceased was

¶24

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..3..

¶25

succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. According to the petitioners, the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation.

¶26

The respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver respectively of the autorickshaw with Reg.No. KL-61/542 remained ex-parte. The 3^rd respondent insurance company entered appearance and filed written statement and admitted that the autorickshaw with Reg.No. KL61/542 was covered with a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident but contended that the 2^nd respondent was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. It was also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.

¶27

The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing

¶28

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..4..

¶29

Reg.No. KL-61/542 by the 2^nd respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,19,000/- as total compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition. The insurance company was directed to satisfy the award. Since the 2^nd respondent did not produce the driving license in spite of the direction of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the 3^rd respondent insurer is entitled to reimburse the amount from the respondents 1 and 2.

¶30

The petitioners have preferred this appeal contending that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads.

¶31

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount claimed	Amount awarded (in Rs.)
1.	Loss of earnings from 13.10.12 to till time	13,06,000	Nil
2.	Partial loss of earnigs	Nil	Nil
3.	Transport to hospital	4,000	1,000

¶32

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..5..

¶33

4.	Extra nourishment	3,000	Nil
5.	Damage to clothing and article	2,000	1,000
6.	Others: 1. Medicine and bystanders etc.	25,000	Nil
	2. Funeral expenses 3. Loss of consortium 4. Love and affection	10,000 50,000 50,000	25,000 1,00,000 Nil
7.	Compensation for pain and sufferings	50,000	Nil
8.	Compensation for continuing permanent disability		Nil
9.	Compensation for loss of earning power		Nil
10.	Compensation for loss of dependency	Not claimed	7,92,000
	Total	15,00,000/-	9,19,000

¶34

The petitioners contend that the Tribunal went

¶35

wrong in taking the monthly income of the deceased as

¶36

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..6..

¶37

Rs.8,000/-. The deceased was an autorickshaw driver and therefore, as per the decision reported in Ramachandrappa v . Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236 : AIR 2011 SC 2951] , the notional monthly income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.8,500/-. The deceased was aged 52 years and self employed. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as '11'. In view of re-fixation of monthly income as Rs.8500, the loss of dependency income by adding 25% towards future prospects is recalculated as [8500+2125=10625]. Hence, the compensation for loss of dependency would come to 10625 x 12 x 11 – ¼ =10,51,875/- Accordingly, I re-fix the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency as Rs.10,51,875/- [10,625x12x11x3/4]. The Tribunal has granted Rs.7,92,000/- under this head and the petitioners are entitled for an additional amount of

¶38

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..7..

¶39

Rs.2,59,875/- [10,51,875 – 7,92,000] under this head.

¶40

With regard to the compensation awarded under the head loss of consortium, only Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- under this head (40,000x4). Therefore, Rs.60,000/- [1,60,000 – 1,00,000] more is awarded under the head loss of consortium.

¶41

As regards the funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded, for which the petitioners are entitled only for Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- [25,000-15,000] has to be deducted from the compensation awarded under the said head.

¶42

No amount is awarded under the head loss of estate. The petitioners are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of estate.

¶43

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioners are awarded an additional compensation of

¶44

MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..8..

¶45

Rs.3,24,875/- [Rupees three lakhs twenty four thousand eight hundred and seventy five only] [2,59,875 + 60,000 + 15,000 – 10,000 ] with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3^rd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶46

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶47

SB/23/11/2021

Amina Beevi v. Rejendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amina Beevi v. Rejendran

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

Sarun G. Vs State of Kerala

K.X.Martin & Others Vs K.S.E.B. & Another

Abdulrasak Vs the District Collector

Prasanna Babu @ Babu Vs Aliarkutty

Sajeena S. Vs Irshad a.

Lekha Vs Mohanan Nair