Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Jasmi Santhosh

Kerala HC11 Oct 2023MACA/1650/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident claims appeal challenged the compensation quantum awarded by the Tribunal. The court held that while certain heads were exorbitant and others low, the total award required no interference to ensure just compensation. The appeal was dismissed confirming the Tribunal award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed confirming the compartment award passed by the Tribunal.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jasmi… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 1650 OF 2018

¶6

OPMV 334/2012 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶7

TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶9

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
CHERTHALA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS
MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-682020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 JASMI SANTHOSH W/O LATE. SANTHOSH, NANDANAM, KR PURAM PO,PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, PIN-689667.

¶12

2 ASAR (MINOR), AGED 8 YEARS, S/O LATE SANTHOSH NANDANAM,KR PURAM PO, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, PIN-689667.REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶13

3 GOPALAKRISHNAN, NANDANAM, KR PURAM PO, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, PIN-689667.

¶14

4 OMANA, W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, NANDANAM, KR PURAM PO,PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, PIN-689667. BY ADVS. ABDUL JALEEL.A M.A. SULFIA

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.A.C.A. No.1650/2018

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is submitted by the 3^rd respondent in OP(MV)

¶20

No.334/2012 on the files of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha.

¶21

The aforesaid claim petition was submitted by the

¶22

respondents herein seeking compensation for the death of one Santhosh in a motor accident that occurred on 27.08.2011. The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by a car bearing registration No.KL-32/C-5748. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant herein.

¶23

According to the respondents, the deceased was conducting the business of transportation of toddy with a monthly income of 9,000/-. He was aged 32 years. As compensation, they claimed 18,96,000/-.

¶24

The appellant alone contested the matter. They filed a written statement admitting the existence of a valid insurance policy for the car. However, the liability and the quantum of compensation were disputed by them.

¶25

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A7

¶26

from the side of the claimants, and no evidence was adduced by

¶27

M.A.C.A. No.1650/2018

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

the appellant/respondent. After examining the materials placed on

¶30

record, the tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 1^st respondent in the claim petition and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held liable

¶31

to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as `14,44,600/-. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶32

Heard Sri. Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. M.A. Sulfia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the heads such as pain and suffering, love and affection are exorbitant. It was also pointed out that, in addition to the amounts awarded under other heads, a further compensation of `50,000/- was granted under the head of shock and mental agony. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal should not have granted this amount.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid contention by highlighting that the amounts awarded by the tribunal under various heads are

¶35

M.A.C.A. No.1650/2018 : 4 :

¶36

on the lower side. It was pointed out that even though the deceased left behind the wife, one child and parents, the amount awarded for loss of consortium was only 40,000/-whereas the total amount ought to have been 1,60,000/- (`40,000/- each). It was also pointed out that the monthly income taken by the tribunal was also on the lower side.

¶37

After carefully going through the contention raised from either side and the materials placed on record, I find that, even though the amounts awarded by the tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering, love and affection and mental agony were on the higher side, I do not find any necessity to interfere in the award. As far as compensation for pain and suffering is concerned, it is a well settled position that, when compensation is granted under the other heads, loss of dependency, loss of estate, etc., no further amounts need to be granted for pain and suffering.

¶38

Similarly, when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, a separate amount under the head of loss of love and affection also cannot be granted as held in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati & Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 644]. Similarly, the compensation for shock and mental agony was also not at all

¶39

M.A.C.A. No.1650/2018

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

required, considering the other heads on which the compensation was awarded. However, even while accepting all these contentions, certain crucial aspects are to be taken into consideration. First of all, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium was only 40,000/-, whereas the claimants were entitled to a total sum of 1,60,000/-.

¶42

Besides the same, with regard to the monthly income fixed by the tribunal also, I find that the said amount was on the lower side. In the light of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735], the tribunal ought to have taken a higher monthly income. However, no appeal has been submitted by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, and hence, I am of the view that the said question need not be considered. However, when considering the deduction of the amounts awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, love and affection and shock and mental agony, the fact that the amounts awarded under the other

¶43

M.A.C.A. No.1650/2018

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

heads were on the lower side will have some relevance. This is particularly because it is the duty of this court to ensure that the claimants are getting just compensation. Thus, since it is found that the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium and

¶46

loss of dependency was on the lower side, I do not find any necessity to interfere in the award merely because the amount awarded under certain other heads, such as pain and sufferings, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, shock and mental agony were on the higher side. In short, after considering the total amount awarded by the tribunal, I deem it appropriate not to interfere with the award.

¶47

In the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha, on 31.01.2018 in OP(MV) No.334/2012.

¶48

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶49

ncd

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Jasmi Santhosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Jasmi Santhosh

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

Joby C.J. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Usha Saju Vs Ratheesh Joseph

Mohammedunni Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Shahir Mc and Ors.

Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala

Saidu, Vs State of Kerala