Allowed

Thankamani v. Alavikutty @ Babu

Kerala HC4 Apr 2022MACA/666/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award addressed insufficient compensation for the death of a deceased mother. The High Court held that legal heirs are entitled to compensation regardless of financial dependency. It enhanced the award using statutory formulas.

What did the court decide?

Total enhanced compensation of Rs.73,000/- with 6% interest apportioned equally among claimants and 4th respondent.

Thankamani Vs Alavikutty @ Babu — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 666 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1647/2010 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS

¶7

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN THE OP(MV):

¶9

1 THANKAMANI, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O VASU, THADAYIL KUDAMVETTI HOUSE, P.O VAIDYARANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) 2 VASANTHA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O UNNI, CHAKKAMMATTUKUNNU HOUSE, P.O CHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) 3 SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O KUNJUTTY, KOCHAMBILLI HOUSE, P.O CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (SON OF THE DECEASED) 4 SOBHANA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O KUNUTTY, VENNATHODI HOUSE, P.O CHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) 5 VENUGOPALAN @ VENU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNJUTTY, VENNATHODI HOUSE, P.O CHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAMDISTRICT (SON OF THE DECEASED) 6 SATHI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O KRISHNANM, KUNNATHU PARAMBA HOUSE, P.O PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) 7 PADMINI, AGED 39 YEARS W/O UNNIKRISHNAN, THERUVATH HOUSE, P.O A.R. NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) 8 SATHEESH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O KUNJUTTY, VENNATHODI HOUSE,

¶10

M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2012

¶11

¶12

P.O CHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (SON OF THE DECEASED)

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

¶15

1 ALAVIKUTTY @ BABU, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN, P.W.D CONSTRACTOR, CHELAMPURATH HOUSE, THURAKKAL KONDOTTY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 638. 2 UMMER, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O KUNHMUTTY HAJI, RAHATH MANZIL, PUTHUKKODE, P.O PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505. 3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT 673 001. 4 MANOJ, S/O KUNNUTTY, VENNATHODI HOUSE, P.O,CHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 634. BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) GEORGE A.CHERIAN ALEXY AUGUSTINE SMT K.S SANTHI

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2012

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal has been filed against the award passed in O.P.M.V No.1647/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (In short ‘Tribunal’). The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short the Act) out of the death of Kalyani (herein after be referred as deceased) mother of the appellants 1 to 8 as well as 4^th respondent in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.03.2010 due to hit with a car bearing Registration No. KL-10-R-4646 driven by the 2^nd respondent while she was walking along the extreme side of the Thondayad-Ramanattukara bypass road. Total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been claimed. It is alleged that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and 3^rd respondent is the insurer.

¶21

Before the Tribunal, 3^rd respondent filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. Rashness and negligence alleged against the 2^nd respondent is denied.

¶22

Exts.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the appellants/claimants. There was no oral evidence from either side. On evaluating the pleadings as well as documents, the Tribunal found that

¶23

M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2012

¶24

¶25

the accident happened due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd respondent is held liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent insured as per the contract of insurance. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,000/- under various heads together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

¶26

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellants/claimants (hereinafter be referred as claimants) are before this Court in appeal for the various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal. Service of notice on respondents 1,2 and 4 has been dispensed with at the risk of the appellant. The 3^rd respondent insurer appeared through the learned Standing Counsel Adv.K.S.Santhi.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Lower court records were called for and perused.

¶28

According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the deceased was a healthy lady aged 75 years. She was a coolie and her monthly income was Rs.4,000/-. But the Tribunal went wrong in not awarding any compensation towards loss of dependency. It is also contended that very meager amount was awarded under other heads. Hence claimants seeks for enhancement of compensation on all heads.

¶29

M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2012

¶30

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent on the other hand contended that all claimants are majors and are living separately from the deceased. None of them are dependents of the deceased and hence no amount can be awarded towards loss of dependency. It is also contended that just and reasonable compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and no interference is called for in this appeal.

¶32

Deceased was the mother of the claimants as well as 4^th respondent. Though they are not financially dependents of deceased, they are entitled for compensation as legal heirs of deceased. In Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque and Others [2007 KHC 5596] wherein this Court granted compensation when relatives are legal heirs but are not dependants of deceased. It was held that in terms of clause (c) of sub-s.(1) of S.166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. In National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Muneer [2003 KHC 17] , it has been held that even in a claim under Section 166/168 of the Act, quantum of compensation can not fall below the amount prescribed in the structured formula stipulated under Section 163A of the Act.

¶33

M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2012

¶34

¶35

In this case also just and reasonable compensation has to be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased Kalyani. As per settled position in Pranay Sethi's case followed by Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018 (18) SCC 130), the claimants are entitled to get Rs.16,500/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Deducting the amount already granted, claimants are entitled to get Rs.13,500/- (16,500-3,000) under the head of funeral expenses. Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards loss of estate. Deducting the amount already granted, claimants are entitled to get Rs.14,500/- (16,500-2,000) towards loss of estate. Deceased was the mother of the claimants, hence a reasonable amount can be awarded towards loss of love and affection. Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Deducting the amount already awarded under that head, the balance would be Rs.45,000/- (50,000-5,000).

¶36

So in total the claimants are entitled to get total enhanced compensation of Rs.73,000/- (45,000+14,500+13,500).

¶37

In the result, the claimants are allowed to realize enhanced compensation of Rs.73,000/- (Seventy three thousand only) which will

¶38

M.A.C.A No. 666 of 2012

¶39

¶40

carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till realization. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned equally among the appellants as well as 4^th respondent. The third respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

Claimants and 4^th respondent shall provide their Bank Account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, with copy to the standing counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶42

In the result appeal stands allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶43

SD/-

¶44

rps/

¶45

M.R.ANITHA, JUDGE

Thankamani v. Alavikutty @ Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamani v. Alavikutty @ Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Mathew Vs the National Insurance Company Ltd.

Selvaraj P. Vs Joseph E.J.

Pankajakshan Vs Mathew

Bhaskaran Vs Haris

Visal Vs P.K.Unnikrishnan

K.T. Babu Vs the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.