Allowed

Valsalakumari v. Rajan Mathew

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022MACA/2187/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced compensation payable to the legal heirs of a deceased electrician. The court modified the head of loss of dependency, increased funeral expenses, and adjusted loss of consortium based on relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.14,06,900 with interest at 5% from the date of petition until payment of the enhanced amount.

Valsalakumari Vs Rajan Mathew — 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 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2187 OF 2012

¶6

OPMV 576/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶8

1 VALSALAKUMARI

¶9

W/O.REJI PANICKER,KOCHUPOIKAYIL, OTHERA WEST.P.O, THAIMARAVUMKARA,KUTTOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

2 THANKAMANYAMMA W/O.RAVI PANICKER, -DO- -DO-

¶11

3 GOVIND R.PANICKER, S/O REJI PANICKER, -DO- -DOBY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

1 RAJAN MATHEW

¶14

S/O.MATHEW, MANKOTTUTHARA HOUSE, OTHERA WEST.P.O, KUTTOOR VILLAGE-689551.

¶15

2 K.M.JOSE, KUTTEKKOTTIL HOUSE,MAZHUUKEER, KALLISSERI-689124.

¶16

3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, T.P.CLAIMS,T.C.25/153(3), 2ND FLOOR, KESAV TOWER,GANDHARI AMMAN KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.2187/12

JUDGMENT

Dated : 21^st July, 2022

¶22

The legal heirs of one Reji Panicker who passed

¶23

away in an accident of the year 2007 are the appellants before this court. They were the claimants in OP(MV).576/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. In the instant appeal, they challenge the Award dated 4.4.2012 in the said Original Petition, seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads.

¶24

Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri.P.M.M.Najib Khan, the learned counsel for the 3^rd

¶25

respondent/Insurance Company.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellants first pointed out that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.9000/- at the time of his death. He was a licenced Electrician. Exts.A8 and A10 are the licences issued by the KSEB empowering him to

¶27

do wiring as well as electrical jobs. However, the Tribunal took only Rs.4000/- as monthly

¶28

¶29

MACA.2187/12

¶30

income. It is true that no proof in respect of income is produced before the Tribunal. However, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income fixed for the year 2007 is Rs.6000/- and it is only just and reasonable to enhance the same by Rs.1000/- more, since the deceased was doing a skilled job, as established by Exts.A8 and A10 licences. Therefore, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.7000/- .

¶31

The second aspect pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no amount has been granted towards future prospects. Going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] , future prospects is liable to be reckoned at 40%. The said claim is thus recognized. The learned counsel for the appellant was fair enough to point out that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is 17, whereas the

¶32

¶33

MACA.2187/12

¶34

correct multiplier is 16, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , and in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] . The

¶35

multiplier will stand corrected as 16, instead of 17.

¶36

The next aspect pointed out by the learned counsel is the compensation granted towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection.

¶37

Rs.50,000/- is seen given under both heads. Again, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors [2021 (4) KLT SN 10 (C.No.8) SC = (2020) SCC Online 410) , a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, for the legal representatives is liable to be reckoned. Since the deceased is survived by his wife, minor

¶38

son and mother, they are entitled to a compensation by way of consortium of

¶39

Rs.1,20,000 /-. The said claim is also recognized.

¶40

Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that towards loss of estate, a sum of

¶41

¶42

MACA.2187/12

¶43

Rs.5000/- only was granted as against Rs.15,000/to which the appellants are legally entitled to. This claim has to be recognized. Similarly, the funeral expenses is only reckoned at Rs.10,000/under which head, claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/-. So it can be adjusted, is the submission of the learned counsel.

¶44

The above claims raised by the learned counsel are liable to be recognized. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The compensation amount payable to the appellants/claimants will stand reworked as indicted below.

¶45

Sl. No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)	Total amount after enhancement in appeal (Rs.)
1	Transport to hospital	1500/-	1,500/-
2	Damage to clothings	1000/-	1,000/-
3	Medical expenses	Nil	Nil
4	Funeral expenses	10,000/-	15,000/-
5	Compensation for loss of consortium	20,000/-	1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3)
6	Loss of dependency	5,44,000/-	12,54,400/- (7000 x 140/100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3)
7	Loss of love and affection to additional third respondent	20,000/-	Nil
8	Loss of love and affection to petitioner No.2	10,000/-	Nil

¶46

MACA.2187/12

¶47

¶48

9	Loss of estate	20,000/-	15,000
10	Compensation for pain and sufferings endued by the deceased	Nil	Nil
11	Total	6,26,500/-	14,06,900/-
	Amount enhanced =Rs.7,	80,400/-(14,06	,900 – 6,26,500/-)

¶49

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

¶50

MACA.2187/12

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN, Judge

¶54

Mrcs

Valsalakumari v. Rajan Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsalakumari v. Rajan Mathew

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

Sathyan Vs Jyothi Kumar

C.P.Thomas Vs Murugan

P.v.Mathew Vs Koona Sudhakar

Digi, W/O.Late Emmanuel @ Sunny Vs Jyothi T.K., S/O.Kripalani

Raveendran Pillai Vs Vasudevan

Rarichan Vs Jomet