Allowed

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

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022MACA/758/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased person by reassessing monthly income at Rs.6,000 and applying Supreme Court precedents for future prospects, consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, increasing the total payable amount to Rs.9,32,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.9,32,000; future prospects awarded at 25% of reckoned income; interest directed at 5% on enhanced portion from date of petition.

Digi, W/O.Late Emmanuel @ Sunny Vs Jyothi T.K., S/O.Kripalani — Insurance | 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. 758 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.6.2011 IN OPMV 1026/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THODUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 DIGI, W/O.LATE EMMANUEL @ SUNNY VELLAMATHADATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT ODACKAL HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTOM P.O., VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶9

2 AMAL SUNNY, S/O.LATE EMMANUEL @ SUNNY, VELLAMATHADATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT ODACKAL HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTOM P.O., VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶10

3 AMALU SUNNY, D/O.LATE EMMANUEL @ SUNNY, VELLAMATHADATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ELANJI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT ODACKAL HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTOM P.O., VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL

¶12

RESPONDENTS/R1, R3 & ADDL.R4 TO ADDL.R6:

¶13

1 JYOTHI T.K., S/O.KRIPALANI TESS NIVAS, PALLIPURATHUSSERY P.O., T.V.PURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 606.

¶14

2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DAMODAR CHAMBERS, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 301.

¶15

3 PONNAMMA ABRAHAM ELAMKULATHU HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT ROAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 103.

¶16

MACA 758/2013

¶17

¶18

4 MANU ABRAHAM ELAMKULATHU HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT ROAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 103. 5 MANJU ABRAHAM ELAMKULATHU HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT ROAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 103. BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.LALBIND SMT.DEEPA GEORGE SMT.DEEPA GEORGE SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.R.SRINATH

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 758/2013

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

-----------------------------------MACA No.758 of 2013

¶24

------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2022

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The claimants in O.P(M.V) No.1026/2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha are the appellants in this appeal. They are the legal heirs of one Emmanuel, who succumbed to the injuries caused in a road accident on 28.8.2005. He was 46 years old at that time.

¶27

Heard Sri.Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Deepa George, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- at the time of his death, as he was engaged in pineapple cultivation at that time. PWs 2 and 3, who are the owners of the land where the deceased was conducting pineapple cultivation, were examined in proof of income. Both of them deposed

¶29

MACA 758/2013

¶30

¶31

that the deceased was having a monthly income to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. However, the Tribunal reckoned the income only at Rs.3,000/-. This court finds that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is erroneous. Even going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income stipulated is Rs.5,000/- for the year 2005. In the instant case, some evidence has been adduced by the claimants through PWs 2 and 3. Besides, PW1, the wife of the deceased, mounted the box, who also spoke about the income of the deceased. In such circumstances, some enhancement over the notional income stipulated in Ramachandrappa (supra) may have to be considered. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.6,000/-, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances. Needless to say that one-third of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expense of the deceased.

¶32

The second contention is with respect to future prospects. No amount is granted by the Tribunal towards future prospects. Going by the judgment of

¶33

MACA 758/2013

¶34

¶35

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the appellants are entitled to 25% of the income reckoned towards future prospects. It is so directed.

¶36

The third count is with respect to consortium. Rs.10,000/- alone is seen granted by the Tribunal under that head, whereas the appellants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). The deceased is survived by three legal heirs. Therefore, they are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium, from which Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal is liable to be deducted.

¶37

The next contention is with respect to the amount granted under the head funeral expenses. Rs.5,000/-, as against the entitled amount of Rs.15,000/-, was given by the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, going by the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Loss of estate was reckoned at Rs.10,000/- as against the entitled amount of Rs.15,000/-, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, on that

¶38

MACA 758/2013

¶39

¶40

count also, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-.

¶41

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation payable to the appellants stands re-worked as indicated in the tabular statement shown below:

¶42

Sl. No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)	Total amount after enhancement in appeal (Rs.)
1	Transportation expenses	2000	2000
2	Funeral expenses	5000	15000
3	Loss of dependency	312000	* 780000
4	Loss of estate	10000	15000
5	Loss of consortium	10000	120000
	Total	339000	932000
	Amount enhanced=Rs.5,93	,000(9,32,00	0 – 3,39,000)

¶43

*[6000x(125/100)x12x13x(2/3)]

¶44

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. Since there was a delay of 579 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 22.12.2021 in C.M.Appl.No.1/2013. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank

¶45

MACA 758/2013

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶49

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Valsalakumari Vs Rajan Mathew

Raveendran Pillai Vs Vasudevan

Rarichan Vs Jomet