Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela

Kerala HC26 Oct 2022MACA/1564/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against an MCAT award. The Court set aside Rs. 75,000 awarded for accidental death as death was unrelated to the accident, maintaining compensation of Rs. 20,110 under other heads.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award granting Rs. 75,000 under 'accidental death' set aside; grant under other heads maintained; insurer to pay Rs. 20,110 with interest.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Leela — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1564 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.11.2013 IN O.P(MV) NO. 339/2007 OF

¶7

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & IST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶8

TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

APPELLANT/SECOND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P(MV) :-

¶10

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
CHERTHALA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THEREGIONAL MANAGER,

¶11

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.M.A.GEORGE
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE O.P.(MV) :-

¶15

1LEELA
AGED 57 YEARS
D/O.JANAKI, KADAKAYITHARA,
NADUVATHU NAGAR P.O.,AROOKUTTY,
CHERTHALA FROM VADAKKE ADUVAYIL,
POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA 688 526

¶16

2ASHOKAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.JANAKI, -DO- RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERY HOUSE,
POOCHAKKAL P.O., THAIKATTUSSERY PANCHAYATH,
WARD NO.4, CHERTHALA 688 526

¶17

3VISWAMBHARAN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.JANAKI, VADAKKE ADUVAYIL @ ADUVAKKAL
POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA 688 526

¶18

4SATHI
AGED 42 YEARS

¶19

MACA No.1564 of 2014

¶20

¶21

D/O.JANAKI, -DO- RESIDING AT PUNNATHARA
NADUVATHUNAGAR P.O., AROOKKUTTY
PANCHAYATH,WARD 10, CHERTHALA 688 526

¶22

5REGHU
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.JANAKI, VADAKKE ADUVAKKAL,
POOCHAKKAL P.O, CHERTHALA 688 526

¶23

*6K.VINAYACHANDRAN NAIR (DELETED)
RAMA NIVAS, PALLIPPURAM P.O.,
RESIDING ATS REEMANGALAM, MARUTHORVATTOM,
CHERTHALA688 545

¶24

*THE 6TH RESPONDENT DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER
ORDER DATED 17.12.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021

¶25

BY ADVS.
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.N.ASWATHY
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶26

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

MACA No.1564 of 2014

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2022

¶31

This appeal is filed challenging an award passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 13.11.2013 in O.P.(MV) No.339 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondents in accordance with their status in the above Original Petition.

¶32

The appellant is the second respondent in the original petition seeking compensation and the respondents are the claimants before the Tribunal. A common award was passed by the Tribunal in claim petitions filed by the victims of a motor accident that occurred at 05.00 pm on 10.06.2005.

¶33

This is a case wherein the legal heirs of one Mrs.Janaki has approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for her death alleging that it was resulted from injuries sustained by her in the

¶34

¶35

MACA No.1564 of 2014

¶36

motor accident. True that Mrs.Janaki had sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 10.06.2005 with the involvement of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL 4/R 7119. It is not a matter of dispute that death was resulted from the injuries sustained in the motor accident and on the sixth day of her inpatient treatment at the hospital. The second respondent, insurer has disputed the motor accident itself. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, Mrs.Janaki had sustained only some minor injuries in the motor accident and postmortem examination was not conducted to establish the cause of the death.

¶37

According to the second respondent the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by it’s driver. The compensation claimed is also disputed for the reason of exorbitancy. Insurance coverage of the car by the policy issued is also admitted.

¶38

As already said, the claim petition on hand was considered alongwith other claim petitions filed by other persons who had sustained injuries in the very same accident. Evidence was

¶39

MACA No.1564 of 2014

¶40

¶41

adduced in common. Oral evidence adduced consists of the testimony of PWs.1 to 6 and Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.C1. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but marked only Exts.B1 to B5. The Tribunal appreciated the evidence on record and answered issue No.1 affirmatively holding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KL-5/D 2999 by the first respondent. The question whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation for death of the victim was answered in the negative.

¶42

Postmortem examination was not conducted in the case on hand. The wound certificate marked in evidence as Ext.A2 shows that the deceased had sustained fracture on neck of humerus. As per the pleadings in the Original Petition Mrs.Janaki was aged 75 years at the time of the accident. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Mrs.Janaki was undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in the motor accident till her death. Ext.A8 marked in evidence shows that Mrs.Janaki was suffering from jaundice and was taking ayurvedic medicines for that. Therefore, in the view of the Tribunal,

¶43

¶44

MACA No.1564 of 2014

¶45

evidence of any nature was not available for establishing the factum that death of Mrs.Janaki was resulted from the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal found that petitioners, being the legal heirs are not entitled to get compensation for the death of Mrs.Janaki in the road traffic accident from the respondents on the above basis. The said finding was not challenged by the petitioners and therefore has become final.

¶46

Appeal was preferred against the award by the second respondent alone. The main contention taken by Smt.Deepa George, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent was that though the Tribunal had taken a view that death of Mrs.Janaki was not due to injuries sustained in the motor accident, it awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation under the head accidental death.

¶47

While assessing compensation in cases of injury sustained in motor accidents, it is unlikely to grant compensation under the head accidental death. In the case on hand, there was a specific finding by the Tribunal that death of Mrs.Janaki was not occurred due to injuries sustained in the accident and for the reason itself

¶48

¶49

MACA No.1564 of 2014

¶50

compensation ought not to have been awarded under the head accidental death. The impugned award to the extent it grants Rs.75,000/- as compensation in favour of the petitioners under the head accidental death being incorrect is liable to be set aside.

¶51

In the result, appeal stands allowed. The impugned award to the extent the Tribunal arrived at Rs.75,000/- and granted the same as compensation under the head accidental death is set aside. Grant of compensation under other heads are maintained. Therefore, the second respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,110/- (Rupees Twenty thousand one hundred and ten only) as compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate and for the period stand fixed by the Tribunal. The 2^nd respondent shall pay the said amount with interest fixed on it (if not paid) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶54

SMA

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakkeer Vs Biju, S/O.Balan, Kainatty, Kozhikkode

Vapputty @ Bapputty Vs Ramadas

Ambika and Others Vs C.Manikandan and Another

Prasanthan, Vs Robert Missier & Others

Arattuthodika Moideen Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Mathew Thomas Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc