The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to legal heirs of a deceased arising from a motor accident by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, correcting income estimation, adding unrecoverable medical expenses, and adjusting consortium loss.
Original compensation enhanced to Rs. 21,07,729 with specific interest directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 2831 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 705/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:
1 SINDHU LAKSHMI, AGED 31 YEARS W/O.LATE ABHINESH, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,BHAHMAMANGALAM KARA, CHEMBU VILLAGE,NOW RESIDING AT AMBATTU HOUSE, POOVARANI P.O.POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAMDISTRICT.
2 LEELA C.C.@ LEELAMANI, AGED 63 YEARS W/O.GOPI, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, BHAHMAMANGALAM KARA,CHEMBU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT AMBATTU HOUSE,POOVARANI P.O., POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHILTALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN SRI.BABY THOMAS SMT.BINITHA JAMES
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M.A.C.A.No.2831 of 2015
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2022
J U D G M E N T
1. The legal heirs of the deceased, who were the
claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(M.V.)No.705 of 2010, are the appellants herein. They assail the award dated 22.07.2013. The
deceased met with an accident on 09.04.2010 and he passed away on 13.04.2010. He was aged 31 years at the time of death.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for the second respondent/KSRTC. Perused the records.
3. The following are the heads under which the
learned counsel for the appellants seek enhancement.
The first is the monthly income. The deceased was
running a jewellery shop at Thalayolaparambu and
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
4
Rs.13,000/- per month was claimed as his income. Rs.6,000/- alone was reckoned by the Tribunal.
According to the learned counsel, income reckoned is grossly insufficient. Learned counsel for the second respondent/KSRTC submits that, no proof of income was adduced by the claimant and therefore, the award granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. This Court, upon perusal of records, finds that, there is clear reference to the fact that the deceased was running a jewellery shop, going by the FIS and the FIR. PW1 would vouch such facts before the Court. Thus, the fact that the deceased was running a jewellery shop is seen established, although, there is no clear indication as to the income of the
deceased. The accident took place in 2010. It is unreasonable to reckon the monthly income at Rs.6,000/in the year 2010, when the notional income to be reckoned as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
[2011 KHC 4675] is Rs.7,500/- per month. Once it is proved that the deceased was running a jewellery shop,
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
5
it would be reasonable to reckon the income at Rs.10,000/- per month, as against Rs.13,000/- claimed. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month.
4. The second head is with respect to the amounts
expended in the hospital, as supported by Ext.P15 series of medical bills for a sum of Rs.57,729/-. This has not been reckoned at all by the Tribunal, submits the learned counsel. This Court perused Ext.P15 series of bills and finds that the same has been marked. However, there is no discussion in the judgment as regards the said head. Bills produced are original bills. In the circumstances, the amount covered by the bills, Rs.57,729/-, is liable to be paid to the claimants.
5. The third head is with respect to loss on
account of consortium. The deceased is survived by his wife and mother and they are entitled to Rs.40,000/each, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Magma
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
6
General Insurance Company Ltd. v . Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others [2018 KHC 6697]. Learned counsel for the
second respondent/KSRTC pointed out that the amounts granted towards consortium is on the higher side.
Claimants/appellants are only entitled to Rs.80,000/since the deceased is survived by his wife and mother. Rs.1,00,000/- is seen awarded by the learned Tribunal. That apart, Rs.5,000/- is granted towards love and affection. This amount is liable to be adjusted is the submission of the learned counsel for the KSRTC. This Court finds force in the said submission and therefore, amount payable under the head consortium is reduced at Rs.80,000/- as held in Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others [2018 KHC 6697] .
6. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, loss of estate was fixed at Rs.10,000/- as against the entitled amount of Rs.15,000/-. The said claim is
liable to be recognized. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the compensation amount payable to
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
7
the appellants/claimants is reworked as follows:
| Sl. | Head of Claim | Amount awarded | Total amount after |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | by the Tribunal |
enhancement in appeal |
|
| 1 | Loss of earnings | ||
| 2 | Transport to Hospital | 10,000 | 10,000 |
| 3 | Extra Nourishment | - | |
| 4 | Medical Bills | 57,729 | |
| 5 | Funeral Expenses | 25,000 | 25,000 |
| 6 | Bystander Expenses | - | |
| 7 | Pain and Suffering | - | |
| 8 | Loss of dependency | 11,52,000 | 19,20,000 [15,000x12x16x2/3] |
| 9 | Loss of estate | 10,000 | 15,000 |
| 10 | Loss of Love and Affection |
5,000 | - |
| 11 | Loss of consortium | 1,00,000 | 80,000 |
| 12 | Compensation for the loss of expectancy of life |
- | |
| Total | 13,02,000 | 21,07,729 |
Amount enhanced = Rs.21,07,729 – Rs.13,02,000 = Rs.8,05,729/
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
8
7. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for
the amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 686 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period, as directed in order dated 09.08.2019 in C.M.A.No.3296/2015 in this appeal. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months 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 given 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
M.A.C.A.2831/2015
9
directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE
Sbna/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in reckoning the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 6,000 considering he ran a jewellery shop.
Whether medical bills to the extent of Rs. 57,729 were properly taken into account by the Tribunal.
Whether the award for loss of consortium should be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 or reduced based on precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.Explained¶41
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [2011 KHC 4675]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay SethiExplained¶49
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and OthersApplied¶56
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others [2018 KHC 6697]
Sindhu Lakshmi & Ors.
Sethumadhaven
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
C. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
