Allowed

Rukmini v. K.G.Babu

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022MACA/1875/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal following the ratio in Pranay Sethi. The Court corrected income fixation, adjusted the multiplier based on age, added future prospects, and recalculated loss of dependency, estate, consortium, and funeral expenses, granting additional relief to the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.7,13,696/-, with an additional Rs.4,85,050/- granted payable by the Insurance Company, along with enhanced court fee.

Rukmini Vs K.G.Babu — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944
MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2209/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶6

APPELLANTS:

¶7

1 RUKMINI AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN, KOZHINJAVELIVEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA, ANJALITHARA, KUMBALANGHI,COCHIN - 7.

¶8

2 RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 37 YEARS S/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN KOZHINJAVELI VEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA, ANJALITHARA,KUMBALANGHI, COCHIN - 7.

¶9

3BINDHU
AGED 31 YEAS D/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN
KOZHINJAVELI VEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA,
ANJALITHARA,KUMBALANGHI, COCHIN - 7.

¶10

4SINDHU
AGED 28 YEARS D/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN
KOZHINJAVELI VEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA,
ANJALITHARA, KUMBALANGHI, COCHIN - 7.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 K.G.BABU S/O.GANGADHARAN, 2/316, KANNAPPANTHARA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD - 682502.

¶14

2 K.K.NELSON S/O.KUMARAN KUNNUMPURATH VEETTIL NEAR TREASURY, KADUNGASSERRY STOP, NAYARAMBALAM - 682509.

¶15

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶16

2

¶17

3NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NORTH PARAVUR - 683513.

¶18

BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’) by the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.2209/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenging award dated 16.02.2011. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶25

One Vasudevan died as a result of motor accident occurred on 18.05.2006 at about 5.30 p.m. According to the appellants, the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who had driven bus bearing registration No.KL-7 AS 9429, in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and hit down the above said Vasudevan, who was standing on

¶26

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶27

4

¶28

the side of the road. Accordingly, the appellants filed petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶29

Respondents 1 and 2 were declared ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶30

The third respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying accident and negligence. The quantum of compensation challenged while admitting policy.

¶31

The Tribunal adjudicated the matter relying on Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the appellants and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the insurer.

¶32

On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the second respondent and granted compensation amounting to Rs.2,28,646/- along with 8% interest per annum from respondents 1 to 3.

¶33

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶34

5

¶35

On the ground of inadequacy of compensation, this appeal has been preferred. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the appellants claimed Rs.6,000/- per month as income of Vasudevan, who was engaged in fishing, the Tribunal fixed the same at Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, the income requires to be fixed, following the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. This submission is not opposed. Following the ratio in Ramachandrappa’s case (Supra), Rs.5,500/- is fixed as monthly income.

¶36

Though in the petition, the age of the deceased is shown as 55, Ext.A2 postmortem certificate would go to show that the age of the deceased was 57 at the time of accident and therefore, he would come in the age group between 56 – 60 and the multiplier is ‘9’ instead of ‘8’ applied by the Tribunal, following the ratio in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

¶37

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶38

6

¶39

Anr. [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] . Similarly, 10% addition towards future prospects also is liable to be given in this matter, following the ratio in following the ratio in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 (4) KLT 662). Thus, the monthly income for the purpose of calculating ‘loss of dependency’ is fixed at Rs.6050/- (Rs.5,500+550). The learned counsel for the appellants highlighted the number of dependents as 4. Therefore, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is 1/4^th . Accordingly, ‘loss of dependency income’ is re-calculated as under:-

¶40

6050 x 12 x 9 x 3/4 = Rs.4,90,050/-

¶41

Out of which, Rs.1,60,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, Rs.3,30,050/- (4,90,050 – 1,60,000) is granted as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency income’.

¶42

It is noticed that the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/under the head ‘funeral expenses’ while refusing

¶43

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶44

7

¶45

compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. Therefore, following the ratio in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), Rs.15,000/- is granted towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.10,000/- more is granted towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶46

Apart from that, the Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get ‘loss of consortium’ to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4). Out of which, Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Reducing the same, Rs. 1,55,000/- more is granted under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

¶47

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Rs.10,000/- was granted under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.15,000/- granted under the head ‘love and affection’. The same are liable to be reduced as per the ratio in United India Insurance

¶48

Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [2020(3) KHC 760]. Thus, Rs.25,000/- is

¶49

¶50

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶51

reduced under the said heads.

¶52

In the result, this appeal stands allowed. It is ordered that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.7,13,696/- as compensation out of which Rs.2,28,646/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of Rs.4,85,050/- (Rupees four lakh eighty five thousand and fifty only) is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the Insurance Company, from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 456 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically excluded as per order in C.M.Application No.1 of 2012 dated 23.11.2021.

¶53

It is noticed that court fee for Rs.4,00,000/- alone was paid by the appellants and they are liable to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.3,13,696/-. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.3137/- in the name of M.A.C.T., Ernakulam as additional court fee by a separate cheque

¶54

MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012

¶55

¶56

and deposit 50% of the balance amount in the name of the first appellant and the remaining in equal proportion in the name of appellants 2 to 4, within two months.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶59

nkr

Rukmini v. K.G.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmini v. K.G.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunitha M.R Vs Abdul Jaleel M.K

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jameskutty Varghese

Binoj Vs James Kutty Varghese

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs George Wilson

Ajith Kumar Vs Shrihari Rao

Rukiya Vs Sadeesh