Partly allowed

Bindu v. the Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Oct 2021MACA/600/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court recalculated loss of dependency and enhanced loss of consortium and loss of estate heads, while disallowing compensation for pain and suffering. The total compensation was fixed at Rs.6,32,600.

What did the court decide?

Modifying the Tribunal award to grant total compensation of Rs.6,32,600, directing the insurance company to deposit the same in equal proportion.

Bindu Vs the Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. — Insurance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943 MACA NO. 600 OF 2013

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.07.2011 IN OP(MV) No.1155/2006 OF I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶5

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶6

1 BINDU AGED 30 YEARS D/O.PRASANNA, R.S.BHAVAN,KEDAKULAM, AYIROOR P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

2 USHAS AGED 28 YEARS D/O.PRASANNA, R.S.BHAVAN, KEDAKULAM, AYIROOR P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

3 JYOTHI AGED 26 YEARS D/O.PRASANNA, R.S.BHAVAN, KEDAKULAM, AYIROOR P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

4 SUDHAKARAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT R.S.BHAVAN, KEDAKULAM, AYIROOR P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SMT.NIMA JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT

¶12

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶16

================================ M.A.C.A No.600 of 2013

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2021

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Petitioners 1 to 3, who are the dependents of deceased

¶21

Prasanna, had approached the Tribunal by filing petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh. According to them, Prasanna died in consequence of the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 2 nd respondent, the driver of the bus, bearing Reg.No.KL02/R-7277.

¶22

2 . Respondents 1 and 2 had not filed written statement

¶23

before the Tribunal.

¶24

3 . The 3 rd respondent insurance company filed written statement and admitted the policy. Violations of policy conditions were alleged and disputed the quantum of compensation.

¶25

4 . The Tribunal marked Exts.A1 to A6 on the part of the

¶26

MACA.No.600/2013 3

¶27

petitioners and granted Rs.2,48,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum..

¶28

5 . While canvassing enhancement to the award amount, the

¶29

learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that though the appellants/petitioners claimed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month as a milk vendor, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs.2,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, Rs.2,000/-fixed by the Tribunal required to be refixed as Rs.4,000/- for reassessing the loss of dependency income. This submission appears to be convincing. As per the decision reported in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. and [(2014) 2 SCC 735], Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , the monthly income, if calculated, the same would come to Rs.6,000/- per month in this case where the accident was during 2006. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is refixed as Rs.4,000/- per month. 10% addition to be made towards future prospects following the decision in [(2017) 16 SCC 680], National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi

¶30

MACA.No.600/2013 4

¶31

& Ors. , considering the age of the deceased as 54 at the time of the accident and his stature as that of a non permanent employee. Age

¶32

of the deceased as 54 is not disputed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing 12 as multiplier as against 11, following the ratio in [2010 (2) KLT 802(SC)], Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation . On perusal of the award in comparison with the schedule provided in Sarla Verma 's case ( supra ), this submission appears to be convincing. Therefore, the proper multiplier is fixed as 11. Thus the loss of dependency income required to be recalculated as follows:

¶33

4400 (4000+10% of 4000) X 12 X 11 X ¾ = Rs.4,35,600/(Rupees Four lakh thirty five thousand six hundred only).

¶34

Out of which Rs.2,16,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence Rs.2,19,600/- is granted under the head `loss of dependency' in excess of what has been granted by the Tribunal.

¶35

6 . Coming to the other heads, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners that Rs.5,000/- alone was granted under the head `funeral expense' and no amount was

¶36

MACA.No.600/2013 5

¶37

granted under the head loss of estate'. In fact, consortium granted by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- also is on a lower side. The appellants/petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/-, i.e, Rs.40,000/- each, under the head loss of consortium, out of which, Rs.10,000/- granted was reduced and additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted under this head and Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate' following the ratio in Pranay Sethi 's case ( supra ). The award would show that Rs.10,000/- was granted under the head pain and suffering though the same is not entitled in view of the decision reported in [AIR 2020 SC 3076], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur . Therefore, the said amount is reduced. Hence the award amount is modified as follows:

¶38

Heads	Amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amount of compensation recalculated by this Court (Rs.)
	(Rs.)
Transportation to hospital	2000	2000
Funeral expenses	5000	15000
Medical expenses	5000	5000

¶39

MACA.No.600/2013 6

¶40

Pain and suffering	10000	disentitled
Loss of consortium	10000	160000
Loss of estate	Nil	15000
Loss of dependency	216000	435600
Total	248000	632600

¶41

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are found entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,32,600/- (Rupees Six lakh thirty two thousand six hundred only) and the award is modified by granting Rs.3,84,600/- (Rupees Three lakh eighty four thousand six hundred only) as enhanced compensation, excluding the amount granted by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/with the same rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellants in equal proportion within two months from today. The insurance company is further directed to deposit Rs.1,326/- (Rupees One thousand three hundred twenty six only), being the court fee payable in respect of enhanced compensation, in the name of

¶42

MACA.No.600/2013 7

¶43

MACT by a separate cheque. The balance amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioners in the proportion fixed by

¶44

the Tribunal and the petitioners are at liberty to release the same on

¶45

deposit.

¶46

Sd/- (A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)

¶47

rtr/