Allowed

Laila and Others v. Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others

Kerala HC3 Jun 2022MACA/1219/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accidents Claims Appeal to enhance compensation from Rs. 2,21,600 to Rs. 5,24,600 for the death of a fish commission agent. The Court fixed monthly income at Rs. 3,000, applied a 18-year multiplier with one-half deduction for a bachelor, and awarded Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses. Loss of love and affection was excluded against loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,24,600 payable by the Insurance Company with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition.

Laila and Others Vs Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

MACA NO. 1219 OF 2009

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 981/2002 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , ALAPPUZHA

¶9

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶10

1 LAILA,PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH PANCHAYATH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶11

2 KUNJUMON, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶12

3 RAMLATH, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶13

4 SHAHIDA, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶14

5 THAHA, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶15

BY ADV SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 SANOJ KOSHY VARGHESE, S/O.KOSHY VARGHESE, V.S.BHAVAN, ANCHAL PANCHAYATH WARD 7, NADIYANA P O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶18

2 RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.K.GOPALAN, LAL BHAVAN, AGATHYACODE, ANCHAL P O, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶19

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

¶20

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶21

¶22

LTD., P B NO.17, PUNALOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA

¶23

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

¶24

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶26

¶27

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶28

M.A.C.A.No.1219 of 2022

¶29

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2022

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the

¶32

deceased, in O.P(M.V.)No.981 of 2002 are the appellants in this appeal. They assail the order of the Additional

¶33

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha dated 04.04.2008 in the said Original Petition, as per, which

¶34

a total sum of Rs.2,21,600/- was awarded as compensation

¶35

on account of the death of the son of the first

¶36

petitioner/first appellant. The accident occurred in

¶37

the year 2001, when the deceased was 20 years old.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants claimed

¶39

enhancement on the following grounds.

¶40

Firstly, learned counsel contended that monthly income

¶41

of the deceased was reckoned at Rs.2,100/-. According

¶42

to the appellants, deceased was a fish commission agent

¶43

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶44

¶45

at the relevant time earning an income of Rs.7,500/- per

¶46

month. In support of the same, Ext.A9 certificate was

¶47

also produced, but the same was not proved by examining

¶48

the person who issued it. At any rate, a sum of

¶49

Rs.3,000/- is liable to be reckoned as against Rs.2,100/- taken by the Tribunal is the submission of

¶50

the learned counsel for the appellants. This Court is

¶51

of the opinion that the said submission of the learned counsel is reasonable and therefore, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

¶52

The second contention is with respect to the

¶53

multiplier applied. As against the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier as 12.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company also has no quarrel in this regard.

¶55

Accordingly, the correct multiplier of 18 is to be

¶56

applied. However, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the deduction to be effected is not one-third, but one-half, since the deceased, at the

¶57

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶58

¶59

relevant time, was a bachelor. The said contention is

¶60

also accepted.

¶61

The next contention raised by the learned

¶62

counsel for the appellants is that, no amount is

¶63

reckoned towards future prospects. 40% of the income is

¶64

liable to be reckoned towards future prospects. The said contention of the learned counsel is in tune with

¶65

the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in

¶66

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT

¶67

662 (SC)] and hence, liable to be accepted.

¶68

A sum of Rs.5,000/- alone is given towards the

¶69

funeral expenses and transportation. According to the learned counsel, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be given for funeral expenses alone, going by Pranay Sethi's case (supra). T he said contention is liable to be accepted and therefore this Court award Rs.15,000/- as funeral

¶70

expenses and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for transportation.

¶71

Another bone of contention is with respect to

¶72

the consortium to be given to the mother/first

¶73

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶74

¶75

appellant/first claimant. She is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium going by Pranay Sethi's

¶76

case . Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that, Rs.10,000/- given under the head loss on account of love and affection is not liable to be granted, since consortium and loss on account of love and affection cannot be granted simultaneously, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati [2020(9) SCC 644]. The said amount of Rs.10,000/- is therefore liable to be excluded.

¶77

Loss of estate is not reckoned by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.15,000/- as held in Pranay Sethi's case is liable to be awarded under that head. The last ground of contention of the learned counsel is with respect to the interest awarded @6% per annum. According to the learned counsel, in the year 2001, the interest is much

¶78

more. This Court requested the learned counsel appearing on both sides to find out the interest prevailing in the year 2001. Both counsel, after

¶79

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶80

¶81

necessary verification, submitted that the interest rate prevailing in the 2001 is 7%. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already deposited @6% interest as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court limits the rate of interest @7% only for the enhanced amount. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the amount liable to be compensated to the appellant is as shown below.

¶82

Sl. No.	Head	of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Total amount after enhancement in appeal
1	Trans of de expen	portation, carriage ad body & funeral ses	5000	16,000 (15000+1000)
2	Pain	and suffering	5000
3	Loss	of love & affection	10000	nil
4	Loss	of dependency	201600	4,53,600 (3000+1200=4200,

¶83

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶84

¶85

			4200x1/2-2100
			2100x12=25200
			25200x18)
5	Loss on consortium		40,000
6	Loss of estate		15,000
		2,21,600	5,24,600
Amo	unt enhanced =Rs.5,24,600	/- – Rs.2,21,	600/-=Rs.3,03,000/

¶86

The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 7% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 171 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 17.11.2021 in C.M.A.No.1/2009 in this appeal. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account

¶87

before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months

¶88

M.A.C.A.1219/2009

¶89

¶90

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition.

¶91

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶94

Sbna/

Laila and Others v. Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laila and Others v. Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others

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

Kannan, S/O.Ganapathi, C.NO.808/15, Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs Ancilly Devassikutty

S. Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sindhu O. Vs Mathew Kurian

Balan Vs Shimjith