Allowed

Sunitha M.R v. Abdul Jaleel M.K

Kerala HC10 Aug 2022MACA/770/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced the compensation granted to the appellants by recalculating the multiplier, adding portions for future prospects, increasing loss of consortium, and removing impermissible heads like pain and sufferings.

What did the court decide?

The appellants were awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.7,31,870/-, and the third respondent was directed to deposit this amount along with existing liability within two months.

Sunitha M.R Vs Abdul Jaleel M.K — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶4

MACA NO. 770 OF 2012

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.12.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.1448/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶6

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :

¶7

1 SUNITHA M.R., AGED 31 YEARS W/O.GIRISH, KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM.P.O., NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶8

2 UNNIMAYA.M.G., AGED 9 YEARS D/O.GIRISH, MINOR, (D.O.B-18.4.2000), RESIDING AT KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM.P.O., NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE, KODUNGALLOOR. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SUNITHA.M.R.

¶9

3 VISHNUMAYA.M.G. AGED 6 YEARS D/O.GIRISH, MINOR, (D.O.B-5.3.2003), RESIDING AT KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM.P.O., NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE, KODUNGALLOOR. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SUNITHA.M.R.

¶10

4 RADHA.E., AGED 55 YEARS M/O.GIRISH, KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM.P.O., NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE,

MACA No.770 of 2012

..2..

KODUNGALLOOR.

BY ADVS. SRI.KISHOR B. SRI.AJAY JOHNS SRI.K.P.ABDUL GAFOOR

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶16

1 ABDUL JALEEL M.K., MULAKKAMPILLY HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR.P.O., KOCHI-34.

¶17

2 RIJAS.N.B.

¶18

S/O.BASHEER, NAIMANAPARAMPIL, VETTAKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY, NORTH.P.O., KOCH-24.

¶19

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. D.O. JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA.P.O.

¶20

4 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.228, KOCHI-2.

¶21

BY ADVS.

¶22

S.K.AJAY KUMAR SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶25

..3..

¶26

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This appeal is at the instance of the petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.1448 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance companies, viz., third and fourth

¶30

respondents.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶32

The allegation of the appellant is that on

¶33

27.05.2009 at about 7.30 p.m., one Girish died in consequence of a road accident occurred on 25.7.2009 at

¶34

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶35

..4..

¶36

about 7.30 p.m., while he was riding his motorcycle, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the second respondent, who had driven a private bus bearing Registration No.KL-7 BF-7737 at the time of accident, when the same hit down the motorcycle where, the above said Girish was travelling.

¶37

R1 and R2 were set ex parte by the

¶38

Tribunal.

¶39

R3 filed written statement admitting the

¶40

policy to the bus, but denied the liability. Quantum of compensation also was disputed. R4 also filed written statement admitting policy to the motorcycle ridden by Girish, while disputing the liability and quantum of compensation.

¶41

The Tribunal, after adjudicating the claim based on Exts.A1 to A12, granted Rs.16,17,970/- along

¶42

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶43

..5..

¶44

with 8% interest per annum payable by the third respondent, in a case where, no evidence let in by the respondents.

¶45

While canvassing increase on the

¶46

compensation granted by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.9,990/- in the case of the deceased, who was employed as a Peon in Naval Base and he was earning a total salary of Rs.10,502/-, as could be gathered from Ext.A11 certificate issued by the employer. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Rs.10,502/- along with 50% addition is liable to be considered.

¶47

The Tribunal reduced Rs.230/-

¶48

(Rs.210+Rs.20/-) out of Rs.10,502/- on the finding that

¶49

the same are meant for expenses in connection with the

¶50

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶51

..6..

¶52

employment and therefore, the same could not be counted for calculating loss of disability income. The said finding is correct and the same does not require any interference. However, the appellants are entitled to get 50% addition to the monthly income towards future prospectus, following the ratio in [2017 16 SCC 650], National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &

¶53

Ors., since the deceased herein was aged 33 years at the time of accident (below 40 years) having permanent job on the date of accident. The proper multiplier is '16' (age group between 31 to 35), though the Tribunal wrongly applied '17' as the multiplier. 1/4^th is the deduction, since the claimants are four in numbers. Therefore, the loss of dependency income is as under;

¶54

9,990+50%=14,985/-

¶55

14,985x12x16x3/4=21,57,840/-

¶56

..7..

¶57

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶58

Out of which, Rs.15,28,470/- was granted by the Tribunal. 21,57,840-15,28,470= Rs.6,29,370/-

¶59

more is granted under the head loss of dependency income.

¶60

The Tribunal granted Rs.7,500/- alone under the head funeral expenses. Therefore, Rs.7,500/- more is granted under the said head following the ratio in Pranay Sethi' s case(supra). The Tribunal granted Rs.35,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. In this case, the appellants together are entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- as loss of consortium at rate of Rs.40,000/- following the ratio in Pranay Sethi' s case(supra). Out of which, Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal is reduced, treating the same was one granted under the head 'loss of consortium'. The balance amount to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rs.1,60,000-35,000) is

¶61

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶62

..8..

¶63

granted under the head loss of consortium. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate also.

¶64

It is noticed that the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. The same are impermissible in view of the decision in

¶65

[AIR 2020 SC 3076], United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur. Therefore, Rs.45,000/(5,000+40,000) stands reduced.

¶66

In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.7,31,870/- (Rupees Seven lakh Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the

¶67

MACA No.770 of 2012

¶68

..9..

¶69

Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The insurance company is liable to pay the same.

¶70

The insurance company, the third respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the name of the appellants in the proportion 45:20:20:15 within two months from today and on deposit, the appellants are entitled to get the same.

¶71

Sd/- A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶72

rkj

Sunitha M.R v. Abdul Jaleel M.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunitha M.R v. Abdul Jaleel M.K

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

Muhammed Azeem Vs Najumudeen M.

Sivadas Vs Vikraman S

Usman N. Vs Anil Patil

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jameskutty Varghese

Binoj Vs James Kutty Varghese

M/S. Icici General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Shantimol, W/O.Late Anthrayose