Allowed

Benny John v. Georgekutty

Kerala HC15 Jun 2022MACA/586/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the appeal filed by parents claiming compensation for the death of their son in a motor accident. The High Court enhanced the Tribunal's award specifically for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of dependency, citing facts of the child's potential career and need.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,43,400/- with 8% interest on enhanced amounts; confirmation of Tribunal's interest on original amounts.

Benny John Vs Georgekutty — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 586 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 38/2015 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA

¶8

APPELLANT/S:

¶9

1 BENNY JOHN MANAYANICKAL HOUSE, AMBARANIRAPPEL, THIDANAD.

¶10

2 ROSAMMA BENNY MANAYANICKAL HOUSE, AMBARANIRAPPEL, THIDANAD.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.DINNY THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 GEORGEKUTTY (MANAYANICKAL) HOUSE, AMBARANIRAPPEL P.O., BHARANANGANAM-866575.

¶14

2 ARAVIND BABU

¶15

KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATAZHA, THIDANAD-686123.

¶16

3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. MUNICIPAL COMPLEX BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PALA866575.

¶17

BY ADV SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

MACA NO. 586 OF 2017

-2-

J U D G M E N T

The claimants in O.P.M.V No.38/2015 are the appellants. The claim was filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation on account of the death of their son in a road traffic accident.

¶23

On 16.09.2014, the deceased was a pillion rider on a

¶24

motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-35E-8993, driven by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. At 8.45 pm, when they reached near Moonnani, while trying to overtake another motorcycle bearing Reg. No. No.KL35B-8330 through the wrong side, hit on the motorcycle. He sustained injuries and succumbed to death on 20.09.2014, while undergoing treatment at MCH, Kottayam. The deceased was a B.com graduate with other qualifications and he was the only son of appellants. He was intending to join EXL Company, which selected him.

¶25

The 3^rd respondent alone appeared and filed a written statement. The accident and the policy were admitted. It was

¶26

contended that the accident happened due to negligence of the rider of the bike and the amount claimed is excessive. The Tribunal on the

¶27

MACA NO. 586 OF 2017

¶28

-3-

¶29

basis of the documentary evidence, marked as Ext.A1 to A15 and awarded total compensation of Rs.14,40,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs from the respondents.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and 3^rd

¶31

respondent.

¶32

The counsel for appellants submits that the accident happened on 16.09.2014 and he succumbed to death on 20.09.2014, that is after four days. But the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the deceased and being inpatient for 4 days in Medical College Hospital, I am sure that he would have sustained much pain and suffering, and hence, I am enhancing the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- under the head compensation for pain and suffering. Though the claimants claimed Rs.30,000/- as medical expenses nothing was awarded as no evidence was adduced. It is a fact that the only child of the appellants died in the accident. At the state of mental shock, the appellants could not have kept the medical records for claiming the amounts but

¶33

MACA NO. 586 OF 2017

¶34

-4-

¶35

definitely, they would have spent some amount for the treatment. Taking into consideration the said aspects, I am inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- as medical expenses.

¶36

The Tribunal has taken Rs.12,000/- per month as notional

¶37

income as the deceased was a B.com student and Ext.A13 letter of intent was produced to show that he was given a job offer with a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Though going by the decision reported in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income for an accident which happened in 2014, the income to be taken is only Rs.9,500/-. For arriving at just and fair compensation, taking into consideration the letter of intent produced as Ext.A13 and being a B.Com student, I am inclined to accept Rs.12,000/- per month as monthly income as rightly taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects since the deceased was below 40 years, but not having a permanent job, the future prospects can be worked out at the rate of 40% of Rs.12,000/-, which would come to Rs.4,800/-. So the monthly income can be fixed at Rs.16,800/-. Being a bachelor 50% has to be deducted towards the

¶38

MACA NO. 586 OF 2017

¶39

-5-

¶40

personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, the total loss of dependency can be worked out as 16,800 x 12 x 18/2=18,14,400/-.

¶41

Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the

¶42

award passed by the Tribunal.

¶43

Sl No.	Head of Claim	Amt. awarded Tribunal(Rs.)	by	the	Amt. enhanced in appeal(Rs.)
1.	Compensation for pain and suffering	10,000/-			25,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	-			10,000/-
3.	Loss of dependency	12,96,000/-			18,14,400/-
	Total	13,06,000/-			18,49,400
	Amount enhanced	18,49,400-13,06,000	=Rs.5	,43,40	0/-

¶44

In the result , the appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,43,400/- (Rupees Five lakh forty three thousand and four hundred only) with 8% of interest from the date of petition till date of realisation. 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 8% from the date of the petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account

¶45

MACA NO. 586 OF 2017

¶46

-6-

¶47

before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the 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 directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of

petition.

BASANT BALAJI

JUDGE

Benny John v. Georgekutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny John v. Georgekutty

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

Rani S., Vs Arun Muraleedhar

Noufal K.P Vs Rufsana Thesnim C

S.Vellinkiri Vs P.Karthika

Mohammed Riyas (Minor) Vs Abubakkar

Kunjamma Vs Mili Jenis

Nithin Vs Viju.G.Nair