Allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Remya.N.R

Kerala HC24 Aug 2022MACA/506/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal, directing an increase in the monthly notional income from Rs.10,000 to Rs.10,500. The court set aside the Rs.4 lakh for 'love and affection' without adding 'pain and suffering', instead awarding Rs.2 lakh for consortium to five legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; 'pain and suffering' award cancelled; Rs.4 lakh for 'love and affection' converted to Rs.2 lakh for consortium; monthly income enhanced to Rs.10,500.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Remya.N.R — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 506 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.9.2018 IN OPMV

¶7

1296/2016 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

¶8

PALAKKAD

¶9

APPELLANT/R3:

¶10

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

1 REMYA.N.R, W/O. LATE VINOD KUMAR K.V., 7/309, KANNAYIL HOUSE, KARAKURUSSI P.O., KONGAD, PALAKKAD 678 595 NOW RESIDING AT NELLIKKAD VEEDU, KALLUR P.O., MANKARA, PALAKKAD 678 641. 2 MRIDHYIA K.V., AGED 4 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O. LATE VINOD KUMAR K.V., 7/309, KANNAYIL HOUSE, KARAKURUSSI P.O., KONGAD, PALAKKAD 678 595 NOW RESIDING AT NELLIKKAD VEEDU, KALLUR P.O., MANKARA, PALAKKAD 678 641. 3 VINEETHA.K.V., AGED 2 YEARS NIMOR, D/O. LATE VINOD KUMAR K.V., 7/309, KANNAYIL HOUSE, KARAKURUSSI P.O., KONGAD, PALAKKAD 678 595 NOW RESIDING AT NELLIKKAD VEEDU, KALLUR P.O., MANKARA, PALAKKAD 678 641. 4 DEVAKI, W/O. VIDHYANANDAN, D/O. RAMAN, KANNAYIL HOUSE, , KARAKURUSSI P.O., KONGAD, PALAKKAD 678 595. BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 506/2019

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

MACA No.506 of 2019

------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of August, 2022

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, the third respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P(M.V) No.1296/2016. This Original Petition was considered along with O.P(MV) No.1447/2016 and a Common Award dated 29.9.2018 was passed, which is impugned herein.

¶20

Heard Sri.Jacob Mathew P., learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri.P.K.Mohanan, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the records.

¶21

The award is challenged under the following grounds:

¶22

The first ground is with respect to the monthly income taken. The victim was a driver by profession and the claimants claimed Rs.18,000/per month, whereas the Tribunal reckoned

¶23

MACA 506/2019

¶24

¶25

Rs.10,000/- as the notional income, which

¶26

according to the appellant is on the higher side.

¶27

The second ground is with respect to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded towards compensation for 'love and affection', which course is not permissible, according to the learned counsel for the appellant. Instead, consortium ought to have been granted to the legal heirs, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] .

¶28

The third ground is with respect to the compensation granted towards 'pain and suffering', which again is not a permissible course as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors [2021 (4) KLT SN 10 (C.No.8) SC = (2020) SCC Online 410) .

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners refuted the challenge under the above referred grounds, besides pointing

¶30

MACA 506/2019

¶31

¶32

out that even assuming consortium is to be given, the father of the victim, who was alive at the time of death of the victim and who was a petitioner before the Tribunal, is also eligible, de hors the fact that he died pendente lite.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds merit in the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant, except in respect of the monthly income reckoned at Rs.10,000/-.

¶34

We will first deal with the monthly income. The amount claimed by the legal heirs of the victim was Rs.18,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal granted only Rs.10,000/- per month. Even going by the index available in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income corresponding to the year 2016 is Rs.10,500/-. This Court is, therefore, inclined to reckon the monthly income at Rs.10,500/-, de hors the fact that there is no cross objection made by the claimants seeking enhancement. It requires no

¶35

MACA 506/2019

¶36

¶37

emphasis that courts of law holding jurisdiction to award compensation in motor accident cases has to arrive at a 'just' and 'fair' compensation. Such courts are not tied up by the strict rules of pleadings or the requirements of a formal appeal, or for that matter, a Cross Objection. Therefore, the monthly income is to be reckoned at Rs.10,500/-. 40% of the income has to be considered towards future prospects, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶38

As regards the second ground, this Court finds merit in appellant's contention that 'love and affection' cannot be granted in the case of a death, but only consortium, as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) . In the instant case, the victim was survived by his father and mother, his wife and two minor children. All of them are entitled to consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. The fact that the fifth respondent/father of the victim passed away pendente lite will not stand in the way of grant of compensation by way of consortium. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that inasmuch as the 5^th petitioner before the Tribunal is no

¶39

¶40

MACA 506/2019

¶41

more, consortium is not liable to be granted to him. The contention is squarely in the teeth of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [(2021) 2 SCC 166] (check). Therefore, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- granted under the head 'love and affection' is dispensed with and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted towards consortium for five legal heirs @ Rs.40,000/- each.

¶42

As regards the third contention also, I endorse the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that 'pain and suffering' cannot be granted in a case of death, for the reason that the personal injury of an individual abates with his death, as held in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra).

¶43

In such circumstances, this M.A.C.A is allowed and the amount of compensation liable to be granted by the appellant is re-calculated as indicated in the table given below:-

¶44

MACA 506/2019

¶45

¶46

Sl. No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)	Total amount awarded in the appeal (Rs.)
1	Transport to hospital	10000	10000
2	Funeral expenses	15000	15000
3	Pain and suffering	25000	Nil
4	Compensation for loss of dependency Compensation for future prospects	2142000	2249100*
5	Compensation for love and affection	400000	Nil
6	Loss of estate	15000	15000
7	Loss of consortium	40000	200000
		2647000	2489100
	Amount reduced =Rs.157,9	00(2647000 - 24	89100)

¶47

*(14700x12x17x3/4)

¶48

The appellant/Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded at the rate directed in the impugned award.

¶49

This appeal is allowed as indicated above.

¶50

Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶51

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Remya.N.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited, v. Remya.N.R

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

Bhaskaran Vs Aboobacker V.M.

Buburaj Vs Prasannan

V.H.Shamsu Hassan Vs Abdul Azeezkutty

Sheharban Vs Sainul Abid K.

Baji Somarajan Vs the Manager

Usaiba Beevi Vs Shamshadkhan