Allowed

Mini Shaju v. Abdul Rashid

Kerala HC15 Sept 2022MACA/1470/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claim award, enhancing compensation for the family of a deceased victim. The Court increased amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, separated transportation costs, and recalculated future income loss without tax deduction. Order dismissed claims for love and affection/pain and suffering as they had already

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,04,500 to Rs. 22,86,904 with interest at 5% on enhanced amounts; claims for love and affection and pain and suffering dismissed.

Mini Shaju Vs Abdul Rashid — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1470 OF 2010

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.4.2010 IN OPMV 3729/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:

¶7

1 MINI SHAJU, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.LATE K.J.SHAJU, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE,, P.O.ATTORE, VIA-CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK,, PIN- 680 592, THRISSUR.

¶8

2 MINOR JUBIN K.SHAJU S/O.LATE SHAJU, AGED 11 YEARS, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE, P.O.ATTORE, VIA-CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592, THRISSUR.

¶9

3 MINOR JALEENA.K.SHAJU, D/O.LATE K.J.SHAJU AGED 9 YEARS, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE, P.O.ATTORE,, VIA-CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592,, THRISSUR.

¶10

MINORS 2 AND 3 REP.BY NEXT FRIEND, GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND CLAIMANTS 4 & 5:

¶12

1 ABDUL RASHID

¶13

S/O.GHULAM AHMAD WANI, RESIDENT OF SHA GUND SONA, WARI, BARAMULLA DISTRICT, KASHMIR, PIN 193 203.

¶14

2 SAJAD AHAMMED MIR, S/O.AB LIANI MIR RESIDENT OF COURT ROAD, SOPOORE, JAMMU & KASHMIR, PIN 193 201.

¶15

MACA 1470/2010

¶16

¶17

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SOPORE, CONGRESS BUILDING, COLLEGE ROAD, JAMMU & KASHMIR, PIN 193 201.

¶18

4 K.K.JOSEPH AGED 69 YEARS S/O.KURUVILA, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE,, P.O.ATTORE, VIA- CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592, THRISSUR.

¶19

5 MARY JOSEPH, 66 YEARS, W/O.K.K.JOSEPH KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE, P.O.ATTORE, VIACHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. S.K.AJAY KUMAR FOR R3 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 1470/2010

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

MACA No.1470 of 2010

------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2022

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The wife, children and parents of one Mr.Shaju – who died in a road accident at Udampur in Jammu – who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV) No.3729/2003 are the appellants. They assail the award dated 26.4.2010, essentially on the ground of inadequacy of compensation granted under various heads.

¶28

Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that all what is granted under the head of 'loss of consortium' is Rs.10,000/-, as against the appellants' entitled for Rs.40,000/- each to the wife, two children and parents, going by the judgment in

¶30

¶31

MACA 1470/2010

¶32

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased is survived by his wife, two children and parents, each of whom are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. It is so held.

¶33

Under the head 'loss of estate', what is granted by the Tribunal is only Rs.10,000/-, as against the appellants' entitlement for Rs.15,000/-, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). The same is the situation with respect to funeral expenses also, where the Tribunal has reckoned only Rs.5,000/-. Compensation under this head is also liable to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶34

Learned counsel also pointed out that the appellants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 50%, since the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of death, which claim is also liable to be reckoned.

¶35

Another anomaly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to the alleged deduction of tax and the reckoning the net pay

¶36

MACA 1470/2010

¶37

¶38

for the purpose of compensation by the Tribunal. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Ext.A3, which is the pay slip of the deceased, who was working in the Air Force. There, going by the first column, the total credit is Rs.10,687/-. Going by the second column to Ext.A3, total debit is Rs.3,594/-. It is important to note that there is no deduction corresponding to income tax and the net pay is taken as Rs.7,093/- in the last, but one row of Ext.A3. The point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in as much as there is no tax component, the total credit in Ext.A3 is liable to be reckoned. Going by the judgment in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , all what is liable to be deducted is the tax component alone. Although the submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company, this Court finds force in the same. This Court notices that the debits are on account of the PF subscriptions, PF arrears, GIS etc; and as against the head 'i-tax', no amount is seen debited. It may also have to be noticed that the annual income going by Ext.A3 pay slip is less than Rs.1,50,000/-, the

¶39

¶40

MACA 1470/2010

¶41

taxable limit pertaining to the year 2002. Therefore, reckoning of the net salary for the purpose of the income cannot be sustained. The total credit is liable to be taken into account and it is so done.

¶42

Finally, learned counsel for the appellants contended that no separate amount has been granted towards transportation expenses. Instead, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. The course adopted by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. This Court has already found that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, wherefore, this Court separately fix the transportation expenses at Rs.5,000/-, taking note of the fact that the accident occurred at Jammu.

¶43

As against the above claims of the appellants, learned counsel for the third respondent pointed out that the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of his death, wherefore, the correct multiplier, which should have been applied as per the judgment in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , is 16 and the Tribunal erred in reckoning the multiplier as 17. It was also pointed

¶44

MACA 1470/2010

¶45

¶46

out that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads 'love and affection' and 'pain and suffering' has to be obliterated. These contentions of the third respondent are also liable to be accepted.

¶47

In the result, this M.A.C.A is allowed and the amount of compensation payable to the appellants/ claimants is reworked as indicated in the tabular column shown hereinbelow:

¶48

Sl. No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)	Total amount after enhancement in appeal (Rs.)
1	Compensation towards loss of contribution and dependency	9,64,512	2,051,904
2	Compensation towards loss of love and affection	10000	Nil
3	Compensation towards loss of pain and suffering	5000	Nil
4	Compensation towards loss of consortium	10000	200000 (40000x5)
5	Compensation towards loss of estate	10000	15000
6	Funeral expenses	5000	15000
7	Transportation expenses	-	5000
	Total	10,04,500	22,86,904
	Amount enhanced = R 10,04,500)	s.12,82,404/-	(22,86,904 –

¶49

*[10687x12x(150/100)x16x(2/3)]

¶50

MACA 1470/2010

¶51

¶52

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 amounts at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month 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 furnished 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 enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

¶53

Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶54

Mini Shaju v. Abdul Rashid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini Shaju v. Abdul Rashid

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

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

Sheharban Vs Sainul Abid K.

Baji Somarajan Vs the Manager

Mr.Jose Jacob Vs Sri.Shajan Chacko

Justin Jose Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

Badaruddeen. K.K Vs Kanhangad Municipality