Allowed

Lakshmi v. S.Rajendran

Kerala HC16 Mar 2023MACA/3269/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal by legal heirs of a deceased mechanic against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Applying Pranay Sethi norms, the Court enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium by Rs. 3,42,440.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,42,440 awarded to appellants; respondents directed to pay equal shares within two months with interest.

Lakshmi Vs S.Rajendran — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY,THE16THDAYOFMARCH2023/25THPHALGUNA,1944

¶5

MACANO.3269OF2014

¶6

OP(MV)472/2003OFTHEMOTORACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,
KASARAGOD

¶7

APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶8

1 LAKSHMI, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE KANNAN, R/AT MALIKAVALAPPIL, NAYAKS ROAD, KASARAGOD.

¶9

2 CHITRA, AGED 43, W/O. GANGADHARAN, DO-DO-

¶10

3 UNNIKUTTAN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER CHITRA(2ND APPELLANT).

¶11

4 AGITH, AGED 15 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER CHITRA(2ND APPELLANT).

¶12

5ABHIRAMI,AGED11YEARS,
D/O.GANGADHARAN,REPRESENTEDBYHISGUARDIANMOTHER
CHITRA.(2NDAPPELLANT).

¶13

BY ADV SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 S.RAJARAM, S/O. SHANMUGAN, KANI NIVAS, NEAR AMRITHANANDAMAI MADHM, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNOOR DISTRICT-671 001.

¶16

2 ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O. MUHAMMED, MUNDENCHERRY HOUSE, PANAYAMPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-682 001.

¶17

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHOVVA BRANCH, KALTEX JN. KANNUR-2.

¶18

MACA 3269 of 2014

¶19

¶20

4 JOSEPH, S/O. ANTONY D'SOUZA, KUNDAR HOUSE, HOUSE NO. VIII/966, PAIVALIKE, KASARAGOD-687 001.

¶21

5 JOSEPH D' SOUZA, S/O. ANOTNY D' SOUZA, KIDHU HOUSE, PAIVALIKE POST, KASARAGOD-687 001.

¶22

6 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CITY POINT BUILDING, PRESS CLUB JN., M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD-687 001.

¶23

R3BYADV.SRI.JOHNJOSEPHVETTIKAD
R6BYADV.SRI.M.JACOBMURICKAN

¶24

THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY
HEARDON16.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

MACA 3269 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in OP(MV)No.472

¶29

of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶30

The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Gangadharan, who died in a motor accident. While he was travelling in an autorickshaw on 07.04.2003 at 11.15 p.m., KL-13/C-1499 Lorry driven by the 2^nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw from behind and he was thrown down and then KL-14/4864 Lorry driven by the 5^th respondent, at an over speed, ran over him and he died at the spot.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent is the Insurer of the Lorry, which hit the autorickshaw from behind and the 6^th respondent is the Insurer of the Lorry, which ran over the deceased when he was thrown out from the autorickshaw.

¶32

Before the Tribunal, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents.

¶33

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award as claimed by the appellants.

¶34

Heard learned counsel Smt.R.Padmakumari appearing for the appellants, learned counsel Sri.John Joseph Vettikad appearing for the 3^rd respondent and learned counsel Sri.M.Jacob Murickan appearing for the

MACA 3269 of 2014

6^th respondent.

According to the appellants, the deceased was a Mechanic, in Popular Auto Engineering Works, earning monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. Though the Tribunal accepted his monthly income @ Rs.4,000/-, no addition towards future prospects was given. The deceased was aged only 36 years and so, as per the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , he was eligible to get future prospects of 40% added to his monthly income. So his income could have been taken @ Rs.5,600/- (4,000 + 40%). On reducing ⅓ for his personal expense, the balance income would have been @ Rs.3,733/-. The multiplier applicable was 15, as he was aged only 36. So the loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.6,71,940/(3,733X12X15). Since the Tribunal already awarded Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.1,31,940/- (6,71,940 - 5,40,000).

¶39

Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/-. As per Pranay Sethi ’s case cited (Supra) , the appellants are eligible to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. So the appellants are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.13,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

¶40

Towards loss of estate, the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.7,500/-. Going by Pranay Sethi ’s case cited (Supra) , the appellants

¶41

MACA 3269 of 2014 5

¶42

are eligible to get Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. So they are entitled for the balance amount of Rs.7,500/- under the head ‘loss of estate’.

¶43

Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. As the appellants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi ’s case cited (Supra) , all of them are eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’ totalling to Rs.2,00,000/-. Since they were already given Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

¶44

The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be

¶45

reasonable and it needs no interference.

¶46

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of dependency	Rs.5,40,000/-	Rs.6,71,940/-	Rs.1,31,940/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.2,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.13,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs.7,500/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.7,500/-
Loss of consortium	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.2,00,000/-	Rs.1,90,000/-
Total			Rs.3,42,440/-

¶47

In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced

¶48

MACA 3269 of 2014

¶49

¶50

compensation of Rs.3,42,440/- (1,31,940 + 13,000 + 7,500 + 1,90,000).

¶51

The Tribunal found that respondents 3 and 6 are equally liable to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, and that finding is not under challenge. So, the respondents 3 and 6 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,42,440/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty only) in the Bank account of the appellants in equal share, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 422 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.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶55

DSV/16.03.2023.

Lakshmi v. S.Rajendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. S.Rajendran

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

Rejitha Jagan Vs Thangal Kunju

Kalavathy Vs Mohammed P T

Ratheesh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.