Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Jojy P. Jose

Kerala HC14 Jul 2021MACA/1862/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal regarding compensation for a pillion rider injured in an accident. The Court held that adding 50% income to monthly income was incorrect per Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,42,572/- was reduced to Rs. 1,47,050/-; confirmation of interest granted earlier.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jojy P… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943 MACA NO. 1862 OF 2017

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.01.2017 IN OPMV 1176/2014 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT

¶5

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOCHI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI – 682 020.

¶6

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR

¶7

RESPONDENT : PETITIONER

¶8

JOJY P. JOSE, PADINJAREMURIYI HOUSE, VADAKUPURAM P.O, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN – 689 641.

¶9

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON 14.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017 : 2 :

¶11

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶12

================================

¶13

M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017

¶14

================================

¶15

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2021

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Aggrieved by the award passed on 23.01.2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Pathanamthitta in O.P (MV) No.1176 of 2014, the appellant, who is the 3 rd respondent in the Original Petition, has approached this Court by arraying the petitioners and other respondents therein as the respondents herein.

¶18

2 . The brief facts of the case :

¶19

The petitioner was a pillion rider in a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-03-V-1109, which was going from Malayalappuzha to Kumbazha. On 20.06.2014 at about 11.30 a.m when the motorcycle reached at a place near Kaleekalpady junction, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-03—W5367 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle in which the pillion rider was travelling. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent. The second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3 rd respondent is the insurer. The 2 nd respondent is vicariously liable for the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent and the 3 rd

¶20

M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017 : 3 :

¶21

respondent is liable to indemnify the 2 nd respondent. The respondents are therefore jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner.

¶22

3 . The learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant pointed out one anomaly in the award of the Tribunal by relying on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [AIR 2014 SC 1052 : (2014) 2 SCC 735]. He submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in adding 50% income to the monthly income while calculating the disability income and therefore, the amount ought to have been granted is Rs.86,400/- instead of Rs.1,29,600/-.

¶23

4 . Though in the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104] the Honourable Supreme Court has given guidelines regarding the grant of compensation in cases of death, nothing considered in the above verdict as regards to grant of additional 50% while assessing disability income. In view of the matter, the argument advanced by the learned Insurance Company is found to be tenable. Thus the disability income calculated by the Tribunal as Rs.1,29,600/- is incorrect and it would come to only Rs.86,400/-, i.e, (9000X12X5X16/100).

¶24

M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017 : 4 :

¶25

Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,42,572/- is reduced to Rs.1,47,050/- (Rupees One lakh forty seven thousand and fifty only) and hence

¶26

modified award is passed limiting the compensation to Rs.1,47,050/-(Rupees One lakh forty seven thousand and fifty only). The interest granted by the court below as such is confirmed. All other directions issued by the Tribunal will be in force.

¶27

Sd/- (A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)

¶28

rtr/

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Jojy P. Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Jojy P. Jose

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

Mamatha R Shetty Vs Abdul Nazir

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Lltd. Vs Aboobacker

Nalini Sasidharan @ P.T.Nalini Vs Narayana Pillai

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs v.Thilakan

Gopalakrishnan Vs the National Insurance Company Ltd.

Vimal P.M. Vs Johny