Allowed

Sugunan v. Raveendran Nair

Kerala HC6 Mar 2023MACA/1912/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accidents Claim Appeal against the tribunal award. It enhanced compensation for notional income, deleted deductibles for loss of estate, and increased consortium damages. Contributory negligence was not applied to the deceased wife pillion rider. Interest directives were issued.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,50,000; funeral expenses and loss of estate fixed at Rs. 16,500 each; consortium at Rs. 1,32,000 total; 7% interest on enhanced amount from petition date minus 160 days.

Sugunan Vs Raveendran Nair — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1912 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 198/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SUGUNAN K, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KOPRACHIRA, THALAYAZHOM P.O., THALAYAZHOM PANCHAYAT, WARD NO.9, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

2 VIKAS BABU SO. SUGUNAN -DO- -DO-

¶10

3 WINCYMOL DO. SUGUNAN -DO- -DOBY ADV SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.NARYANAN NAIR, EDAPPARAYIL, KARIKKODU P.O., PERUVA, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

2 TRANSPORT OFFICER, M/S. HINDUSTHAN NEWS PRINT, NEWS PRINT NAGAR PO.,, VETTOOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM., (POLICY NO.100100/31/04/000 34).

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SR. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A.1912/2007

¶18

¶19

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.1912 of 2007 ----------------------Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2023

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the claimants in

¶23

O.P(M.V).No.198 of 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala. In an accident which occurred in the

¶24

year 2004, the husband and the wife, who were

¶25

traveling in a motor cycle, sustained injuries, of which, the wife succumbed. O.P(M.V).No.198 of 2005

¶26

is the claim on account of the death of wife, preferred by the husband and two children. The appeal is essentially focused on enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, as also, challenging the contributory negligence

¶27

reckoned by the Tribunal, which resulted in the compensation being reduced by 25%.

¶28

M.A.C.A.1912/2007

¶29

¶30

2. Heard Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. P.K.Santhamma, learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records.

¶31

3. The first point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to the notional income of the wife. The Tribunal reckoned only Rs.2,000/-, whereas, the deceased is entitled to have her notional income reckoned at the rate of Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004, going by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v.

¶32

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] . The contention is well founded and the same is accepted.

¶33

4 . As regards contributory negligence also, this Court finds that the course adopted by the Tribunal is not proper. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of the husband, since the accident occurred in an attempt to overtake a bus.

¶34

M.A.C.A.1912/2007

¶35

¶36

Even assuming that contributory negligence can be

¶37

reckoned, the same has to be confined to the claim of the husband and the same cannot be extended automatically to the claim based on the death of the wife. There cannot be any contributory negligence mulcted on the wife, who was only a pillion in the motor cycle. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that, 25% deduction alleging contributory negligence cannot be sustained.

¶38

5. Under the head 'funeral expenses', a sum of

¶39

Rs.3,000/- alone is granted by the Tribunal, as against the entitlement of the claimants to receive Rs.15,000/-, going by the decision in National

¶40

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662

¶41

(SC)]. The same is the situation with respect to 'loss of estate', under which head, no amount is

¶42

seen granted. Here again, the appellants are

¶43

entitled to Rs.15,000/-. Under both the heads, the

¶44

claimants are entitled to 10% increase as

¶45

M.A.C.A.1912/2007

¶46

¶47

contemplated in Pranay Sethi supra.

¶48

6 . A sum of Rs.15,000/- is seen granted under the head 'love and affection'. The same is liable to be obliterated; instead, the appellants are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each to the three claimants, who are the husband and two children, along with an increase of 10% in terms of Pranay Sethi supra.

¶49

7. The solitary contention raised by the learned

¶50

counsel for the third respondent is that the grant of compensation in the lines indicated above will exceed the total amount claimed by the applicants,

¶51

i.e, Rs.8,00,000/-. This Court is of the opinion that, being a Court which deals with compensation arising from motor accidents, what has to be looked into is grant of just and reasonable compensation and the same need not be pinned down to the niceties of the pleadings, that is to say, the amount claimed in the claim petition.

¶52

M.A.C.A.1912/2007

¶53

¶54

8. In the result, this M.A.C.A. is allowed and the

¶55

compensation amount payable to the

¶56

claimants/appellants is reworked and indicated in the tabular statement here below.

¶57

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Total amount after enhancement in appeal
1	Transport to Hospital	2,000	2,000
2	Funeral Expenses	3,000	16,500 [15000+(15000x10/100)]
3	Loss of estate	Nil	16,500 [15000+(15000x10/100)]
4	Pain and Suffering	15,000	15,000
5	Love and Affection	15,000	Nil
6	Consortium	15,000	1,32,000 [40,000x3x110/100]
7	Loss of dependency	2,08,000	4,68,000 *
	Total	2,58,000	6,50,000
Amo	unt enhanced = Rs.6,50	,000– Rs.2,58	,000=Rs.3,92,000/-

¶58

[ 4,500 x 12 x 13 x 2/3]*

¶59

9. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 7% from the date of petition. If any

¶60

M.A.C.A.1912/2007

¶61

¶62

amount has already been paid, the same shall be

¶63

granted set off. Since there was a delay of 160 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period, as directed in order dated 30.11.2022 in C.M.A.No.1980/2007 in M.A.C.A.1912/2007.

¶64

10. The claimant shall produce the details of the

¶65

Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through

¶66

NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month

¶67

thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within

¶68

the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no

¶69

interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the

¶70

Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as

¶71

directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also