Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Revathi

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022MACA/1563/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of an autorickshaw driver. The Court held that the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation, based on the deceased’s actual income of Rs. 7,800 versus the notional income of Rs. 8,500, was just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal was upheld.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Revathi — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1563 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 125/2013 DATED 5.11.2015 ONT HE FILE OF THE ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KASARAGODE

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶9

MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS 1,2,3 &5:

¶12

1 REVATHI,W/O LATE DINESHAN, RESIDING NEAR CASHEW FACTORY, THALIPADPU, KASARAGOD POST 671 121

¶13

2 BHAVITHA DINESHAN MINOR DATE OF BIRTH 31-08-2009), D/O LATE DINESHAN AND REVATHI, RESIDING AT CASHEW FACTORY, THALIPADPU, KASARAGOD POST, PIN 671 121.

¶14

3 BHAVAN RAJ MINOR, (DATE OF BIRTH 07-09-2011), S/O LATE DINESHAN AND REVATHI, RESIDING AT CASHEW FACTORY, THALIPADPU, KASARAGOD POST, PIN 671 121. (RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE MONORS AND REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT)

¶15

4 SEETHA, W/O KANNAN PATALI, RESIDING NEAR CASHEW FACTORY, THALIPADPU, KASARAGOD POST, PIN 671 121.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN SRI.V.R.RAJESH

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLLY HEARD ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA NO. 1563 OF 2016 ..2..

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The 3^rd respondent insurance company in O.P. (MV)No.125/2013 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded therein by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

¶21

The petitioners are the wife, two children and mother of deceased Dineshan. According to them, on 14.07.2012, while deceased Dineshan was driving his autorickshaw, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL.10AE.1610 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw and Dineshan succumbed to the injuries sustained, on the spot itself. The petitioners preferred the claim petition seeking an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death

¶22

MACA NO. 1563 OF 2016 ..3..

¶23

of Dineshan.

¶24

Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 viz., the driver and owner of the of f ending vehicle remained absent and were set ex parte . The 3^rd respondent insurance company has filed a written statement admitting that the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident and contended that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. It was also contended that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive and exorbitant.

¶25

The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent, the driver of the lorry and awarded an amount of Rs.14,99,950/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs.

¶26

MACA NO. 1563 OF 2016 ..4..

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶28

the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

The contention of the appellant insurance

¶30

company is that the Tribunal went wrong in adding 30% of the income towards future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 40 years, going by the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v . Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], the petitioners are entitled for only 25% addition towards future prospects. It is further contended that taking into account the number of dependents and in the light of the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , there can only be a deduction of 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. However, the Tribunal has deducted 1/5^th of the income to arrive at the compensation for loss of dependency. It is also submitted that the amounts

¶31

MACA NO. 1563 OF 2016 ..5..

¶32

awarded under other heads are excessive.

¶33

The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of

¶34

the deceased who was an autorickshaw driver as

¶35

Rs.7,800/-. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v . Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236 : AIR 2011 SC 2951], the notional income of a casual worker in the year 2004 is Rs.4,500/-. In the light of the guidelines in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.8,500/-. In such circumstances, there has to be enhancement in the compensation awarded under the head “loss of dependency”. The claimants have not preferred an appeal. On going through the split up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, I find that the aggregate compensation awarded

¶36

MACA NO. 1563 OF 2016 ..6..

¶37

is just and reasonable.

¶38

I do not find any reason to interfere with the award

¶39

passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶40

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶41

SB/12/07/2022