Allowed

Sheharban v. Sainul Abid K.

Kerala HC24 Aug 2022MACA/1339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation for loss of dependency and consortium for four dependents, while obliting the separate head of pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,66,875 with Rs. 3,63,125 enhancement; pain and suffering head obliterated; consortium awarded to four dependents.

Sheharban Vs Sainul Abid K. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944

¶7

MACA NO. 1339 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 726/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT

¶9

KOZHIKODE-III / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE

¶10

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 SHEHARBAN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.(LATE) RAFEEQU @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQU, RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

¶12

2 SAFWANUL RASHID K. MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS S/O.(LATE) RAFEEQU @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQU, D.O.B. 10.06.2000, RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

¶13

3 SHAMANAD SAHAD K. MINOR, AGED 12 YEARS S/O.(LATE) RAFEEQU @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQU, D.O.B.

¶14

21.06.2004,RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE,CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

¶15

4 AMINA, AGED 70 YEARS W/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE,CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631.

¶16

BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶18

1 SAINUL ABID K., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, RESIDING AT SABNAZ MANZIL, MELE ALAKKAL PARAMBU, POST VAIDYARANGADI, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE-673633.

¶19

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶20

¶21

2 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR, PARCO TOWERS, P.M.TAJ ROAD, P.B.NO.207, KOZHIKODE.

¶22

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

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶25

¶26

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.1339 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 24^th day of August, 2022

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the

¶31

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kozhikode in O.P. (M.V.)No.726 of 2017. The appellants, who were the

¶32

claimants before the Tribunal, seeks enhancement of the

¶33

compensation awarded under various heads. The victim

¶34

succumbed to the injuries and the claimants are his legal heirs.

¶35

2. Heard Sri.A.V.M.Salahudheen, learned counsel for

¶36

the appellant and Smt.K.S.Santhi, learned Standing Counsel

¶37

for the second respondent/insurance company. Perused the records.

¶38

3. The first point canvassed by the learned counsel

¶39

for the appellants is with respect to the monthly income,

¶40

which has been reckoned by the Tribunal at @Rs.9,000/-.

¶41

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶42

¶43

Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Ramachandrappa

¶44

v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

¶45

[2011 KHC 4675], where a sum of Rs.10,500/- is seen fixed for the year 2006. This contention of the appellants is liable to be accepted and it is so done. The second aspect canvassed by the learned counsel is with respect to the future prospects. According to the learned counsel, the victim was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and therefore, he is entitled to 40% of the amount reckoned towards future prospects. This contention was opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/insurance company pointing out that, in respect of the slab between 40-50, the percentage to be reckoned is 25%, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

¶46

Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] . This Court has

¶47

referred to the judgment in Pranay Sethi, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had recorded its conclusions at paragraph no.61. The fourth conclusion is applicable in the given facts, since the victim was self employed at the time of accident. 40% of the established income is liable to be

¶48

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶49

¶50

reckoned towards future prospects, when the deceased was “below the age of 40 years”. 25% of the income is liable to be reckoned when the deceased was “between the age of 40-50 years”. In the instance case, even according to the appellants/petitioners, the age of the victim was 40 years and therefore, he squarely fall within the slab of 40-50 years, where, 25% of the income is directed to be reckoned towards future prospects in Pranay Sethi. This Court finds

¶51

no error or infirmity in the course adopted by the Tribunal, wherefore, the second contention is rejected.

¶52

4. The third contention is with respect to the grant

¶53

of consortium, which is extended only to the wife, whereas, the victim was survived by his mother and two children too. This contention of the appellant is liable to be accepted and therefore, all the four dependents are entitled to consortium @Rs.40,000/- each. Simultaneous to the same, as contended by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, a sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards 'pain and suffering' is liable to be obliterated, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company

¶54

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶55

¶56

Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. [(2021(4) KLT

¶57

S.N.10 (Case No.8) SC = (2020) SCC Online 410)] .

¶58

5. In the circumstances, this M.A.C.A is allowed and

¶59

the compensation amount payable to the

¶60

appellants/petitioners is recalculated as indicated in the table herein.

¶61

Sl.	Head of Claim	Amount	Total amount after
No.		awarded by the Tribunal	enhancement in appeal
1	Loss of earnings (total)	-
2	Loss of earnings (partial)	-
3	Transportation Expenses	3,000	3,000
4	Bystanders Expenses	1,000	1,000
5	Damage to Clothing	1,000	1,000
6	Pain and Suffering	10,000	Nil
7	Loss of dependency	15,18,750	17,71,875 [(10,500x12)+31,500 (25%) x ¾ x 15]
8	Loss of Consortium	40,000	1,60,000 [40,000x4]
9	Loss of Estate	15,000	15,000
10	Loss of Funeral Expenses	15,000	15,000

¶62

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶63

¶64

Total	16,	03,750	19,66,875
Amount enhanced= Rs.19,66,875	– Rs	.16,03,	750 =Rs.3,63,125/

¶65

6 . The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the

¶66

amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of

¶67

6% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off.The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months 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,

¶68

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

¶69

also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

¶70

M.A.C.A.1339/2018

¶71

¶72

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

Sbna/

Sheharban v. Sainul Abid K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheharban v. Sainul Abid K.

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

Bhaskaran Vs Aboobacker V.M.

Buburaj Vs Prasannan

V.H.Shamsu Hassan Vs Abdul Azeezkutty

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Remya.N.R

Baji Somarajan Vs the Manager

Usaiba Beevi Vs Shamshadkhan