Allowed

Rejitha Jagan v. Thangal Kunju

Kerala HC16 Mar 2023MACA/103/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of compensation as inadequate. The High Court distinguished the appellant's status as a B.Com graduate and artist from a casual laborer, determining a higher monthly income. The Court modified the award for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and loss of estate based on Pranay Sethi guidelines while maintaining the loss of love a

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.14,14,000/- granted for loss of dependency, estate, and funeral expenses, to be deposited by the insurer.

Rejitha Jagan Vs Thangal Kunju — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY,THE16THDAYOFMARCH2023/25THPHALGUNA,1944
MACANO.103OF2015

¶5

OP(MV) 505/2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶6

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 REJITHA JAGAN, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.JAGAN, VEDIKA, CHAVARA MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶8

2 KASHINADHAN, AGED 10 YEARS, S/O.JAGAN, -DO- -DO-

¶9

3 AADIDEV, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O.JAGAN, -DO- -DO-

¶10

4 INDRANI JAGAN, AGED 3 YEARS, D/O.JAGAN, -DO-DO-

¶11

5 ROHINIKUTTY, AGED 68 YEARS, M/O.JAGAN, ROHINI BHAVANAM, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (APPELLANTS 2 TO 4(MINOR)) REP. BY MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT).

¶12

BY ADV SRI.V.PREMCHAND

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THANGAL KUNJU, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, HASHIM MANZIL, CHANTHANATHOPPU, KOLLAM 691 041.

¶15

2 P.S RAJAPPAN, KAUSTHUBHAM-87, KALLUVILA, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 017.

¶16

3 LIJUMON P., S/O.RAJU, CHAKKILEZHATHU, KIZHAKKATHIL, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O, THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691 507.

¶17

4 THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, COCHIN BRANCH, KERALA - 682 019.

¶18

R4 BY ADV SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 103 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

The appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)No.505 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. They are impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶24

The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Jagan, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.12.2010. While Mr.Jagan was riding a motorcycle, KL-2/G-4403 TATA Sumo Car driven by the 3^rd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and he sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed on his way to hospital. He was a 38 years old Artist in Kollam Kalidasa Kalakendram and he was doing part time job in Kerala State Beverages Corporation also, earning daily wages of Rs.180/-. Though the appellants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.9,08,000/-, which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶25

The 1^st respondent was the registered owner, the 2^nd respondent was the defacto owner, the 3^rd respondent was the driver and the 4^th respondent was the Insurer of the offending Tata Sumo Car.

¶26

The death of Sri.Jagan in the accident and the Policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

¶27

Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked from the side of the appellants. No oral or documentary

¶28

MACA 103 of 2015

¶29

¶30

evidence was adduced from the side of the contesting respondents.

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri.V.Premchand appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Smt.Latha Susan Cherian appearing for the 4^th respondent/Insurer.

¶32

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.

¶33

The main ground raised in the appeal is that the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He was a 38 years old Artist in Kollam Kalidasa Kalakendram, earning monthly income of Rs.40,000/-, apart from daily wages of Rs.180/- he was earning from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. PW2 was examined before the Tribunal to say that the deceased was paid Rs.40,000/- per month. But no documents were there to support his contention. Ext.A10, the letter from Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. will show that he was given employment on a daily wage basis @ Rs180/- per day. It was not a permanent employment as rightly found by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] , even a casual labourer was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.7,500/in the year 2010. The appellant was a B.Com. graduate. He was an Artist too, having wife and three children. Exts.A18 and A19 will prove

¶34

MACA 103 of 2015

¶35

¶36

that he was an Artist in Kollam Kalidasa Kalakendram. Considering that fact and also considering the fact that he was a B.Com graduate, his monthly income @ Rs.11,000/- per month is justifiable. Since he was aged only 38, 40% addition towards future prospects also is to be granted. So his monthly income could have been taken as Rs.15,400/-(11,000 + 40%). He was having five dependents. So ¼ has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So his income would have been taken @ Rs.11,550/-, on reducing ¼, for his personal expenses. The multiplier applicable was 15 as he was aged only 38. So the loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.20,79,000/- (11,550 X 12 X 15). Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,75,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’, so the appellants are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.14,04,000/-(20,79,000-6,75,000) as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶37

Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses. As per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

¶38

and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , they were eligible to get only Rs.15,000/-. So Rs.10,000/- is liable to be deducted from the award amount.

¶39

Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. Going by Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , the appellants were eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So Rs.10,000/- is liable to be enhanced under that

MACA 103 of 2015

head.

Towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each. Going by Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , the appellants are eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’. So they are eligible to get Rs.2,00,000/- in total. So no change is needed to the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection and loss of consortium.

¶44

Compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be

¶45

reasonable and so it need not be interfered with.

¶46

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Amounts deducted in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of dependency/ loss of support in future	Rs.6,75,000/-	Rs.20,79,000/-		Rs.14,04,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.15,000/-		Rs.10,000/-
Total			Rs.10,000/-	Rs.14,14,000/-
Enhanced comp	ensation is Rs.1	4,04,000/- (14,1	4,000 - 10,000	/-)

¶47

In the result, the appellants are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.14,04,000/- [(14,04,000+10,000)-10,000].

¶48

MACA 103 of 2015

¶49

¶50

The liability of the 4^th respondent/Insurer to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased is not in dispute. So, the 4^th respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.14,04,000/(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Four Thousand only) in the Bank account of appellants 1 to 5, in equal share, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 154 days of delay in filing the appeal), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶51

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶54

DSV/17.03.2023.

Rejitha Jagan v. Thangal Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejitha Jagan v. Thangal Kunju

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Joseph Mathew

Devasia @ Kunjumon Vs Prasanth P.M.

Sureshkumar T.D. Vs Smt. Sara Mohammed

Kalavathy Vs Mohammed P T

Ratheesh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Lakshmi Vs S.Rajendran