Allowed

Santhini Kuttappan v. National Insurance Company Limited

Kerala HC21 Nov 2023MACA/3221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident claim appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court modified the deceased's monthly income and recalculated dependency damages. It also enhanced the interest rate from 6% to 7.5% per annum and granted additional compensation to the appellants.

What did the court decide?

₹3,09,400 as additional compensation at 7.5% p.a. interest from 06.09.2019, payable within two months.

Santhini Kuttappan Vs National Insurance Company Limited — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 3221 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.07.2022 IN O.P(M.V) NO.2164/2015 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1SANTHINI KUTTAPPAN,
AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O.LATE KUTTAPPAN, NANTHIKKARA HOUSE, MULAYAM
AYYAPPANKAVU P.O. THRISSUR – 680751
(MOTHER OF DECEASED NIKHIL)
2NIKHITHA N.K.
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. LATE KUTTAPPAN NANTHIKKARA HOUSE, MULAYAM
AYYAPPANKAVU P.O. THRISSUR, PIN – 680751
(SISTER OF LATE NIKHIL)
BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
 SMT.SANDRA SUNNY
 SRI.ARUN KUMAR M.A

¶9

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶10

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, AMBIKA ARCADE,
M.G. ROAD THRISSUR – 680 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE A CHERIYAN, SC
 SRI.N.S.NAJEEB
 SRI.C.SIVANUNDAN CHENDAN
 SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR(K/557/1990)

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

M.A.C.A.No.3221 of 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2023

¶16

The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.(M.V.) No.2164/2015. Appellants are the petitioners before the Tribunal who are legal representatives of one Mr.Nikhil who died due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred at

¶17

2.45 a.m on 01.09.2015 near Valiyalikkal in Koorkkenchery-Palakkal public road.

¶18

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondent No.3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

¶19

A Bus bearing registration No.KL-47D-369 hit against an Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-8BA-1495 driven by the petitioner and thereby he sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to a hospital.

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.3221 of 2022

¶21

¶22

While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Alleging that the motor accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by it’s driver and claiming a total sum of ₹35,00,000/-, the Original Petition on hand was filed before the Tribunal.

¶23

The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, awarded a sum of ₹16,13,000/as compensation and ordered payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum for that amount. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation stood awarded, petitioners have approached this Court in the appeal on hand.

¶24

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that though the deceased claimed to be an Auto driver, the Tribunal opted to fix the monthly income notionally as ₹10,000/-.

¶25

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.3221 of 2022

¶27

According to the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, evidence was not adduced by the petitioners to establish the occupation of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was constrained to fix ₹10,000/- as the monthly income on a notional basis.

¶28

This Court has found from the factual aspects narrated in the Original Petition as well as those revealed from the documentary evidence available on record that the motor accident in question was occurred while Mr.Nikhil was driving an Autorickshaw. Therefore, there is every reason to consider his occupation as driver and to modify the monthly income as ₹12,000/-. The Tribunal has added 40% to the monthly income in consideration of loss of future prospects and adopted ‘18’ as the multiplier. Those being correct are maintained.

¶29

A further contention was also raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.3221 of 2022

¶31

¶32

awarded only ₹15,000/- each as compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹40,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium inspite of their entitlement to get ₹16,500/- each and ₹44,000/- per person under the respective heads. The compensation payable when modified to the extent canvassed by the learned counsel, the petitioner will get ₹1,500/- each as additional compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹4,000/- as additional

¶33

compensation towards loss of consortium.

¶34

Tribunal has awarded ₹20,000/- as compensation towards pain and sufferings, but petitioners are disentitled to receive it. It is found from the cause title of the Original Petition that the deceased was survived by his sister. She being the sole sibling, this Court is inclined to treat ₹20,000/- stood awarded under the head pain and suffering as compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection, in her favour.

¶35

M.A.C.A.No.3221 of 2022

¶36

¶37

When compensation for loss of dependency is calculated by this Court afresh with the modified monthly income, ₹18,14,400/- [₹16,800/- (₹12,000/- + 40% of ₹12,000/-) x 12 x 18 x ½] is arrived at. ₹15,12,000/- stood awarded by the Tribunal under that head when adjusted against, petitioners will get ₹3,02,400/- (₹18,14,400/- – ₹15,12,000/-) as additional compensation under that head.

¶38

In the above manner of calculation afresh, the petitioners will get ₹3,09,400/- (₹3,02,400/- + ₹1,500/+ ₹1,500/- + ₹4,000/-) (Rupees three lakhs nine thousand and four hundred only) as additional compensation, which amount will also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation.

¶39

The Tribunal has granted interest only at the rate of 6% per annum for the original compensation stood awarded by it. This Court finds the rate too low,

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.3221 of 2022

¶41

¶42

and it is modified to 7.5% per annum. Therefore, 3^rd respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the original compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal. The additional compensation now arrived at and also the original compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal, with interest accrued on those at the rate of 7.5% per annum (after adjusting any amount, already paid) shall be paid by the 3^rd respondent in favour of petitioners within two months from the date on which a certified copy of this award is received. The disbursal of the Compensation in favour of the petitioners shall be in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019.

¶43

M.A.C.A stands allowed accordingly.

¶44

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

NAB

Santhini Kuttappan v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhini Kuttappan v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepa Vs Joshy

Kumar Behera Vs United India Insurance Company

Dasan Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dhanya, Vs Abu

Sajeev Vs the Divisional Manager

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dhanya