Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. P.K.Velayudhan

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023MACA/44/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's compensation award. The court held that despite a 2% discrepancy in future prospects calculation, deficits in loss of estate and consortium awards justified the original figure, warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

The appeal challenging the compensation award is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.K.Velayudhan — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 44 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 512/2012 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA

¶8

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶9

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. SELAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:

¶12

1 P.K.VELAYUDHAN F/O.DECEASED MAHESH P.V, PATTIAMBAM HOUSE THOYARIMALA P.O, NENMENI AMSOM DESOM OF SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN.673 592

¶13

2 THANKAMMA ALIAS THANKAMANI M/O.DECEASED MAHESH P.V, PATTIAMBAM HOUSE THOYARIMALA P.O, NENMENI AMSOM DESOM OF SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN.673 592

¶14

3 SHANTHI PRABHA

¶15

D/O.P.K.VELAYUDHAN, PATTIAMBAM HOUSE THOYARIMALA P.O, NENMENI AMSOM DESOM OF SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN.673 592.

¶16

BY ADV SMT.PRIYA ELIZABETH BABU

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2023, THE COURT ON 07.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA No.44 of 2015

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

MACA No.44 of 2015

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2023

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The 3^rd respondent/insurer in OP(MV) No.512 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, is the appellant herein. They are assailing the impugned award, on the ground of excessive nature of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, are the respondents herein.

¶25

On 02.03.2012 at about 2.10 p.m, while deceased Sri.P.V Mahesh was travelling in a motorcycle, he was knocked down by TN 28 AH/7093 lorry driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, at Edappally toll gate. Though he was taken to Medical Centre, Ernakulam, he succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.17 lakh, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,77,500/- as compensation.

¶26

MACA No.44 of 2015

¶27

¶28

The accidental death of Sri.P V Mahesh as well as

¶29

the policy was not disputed by the insurer.

¶30

Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked.

¶31

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

¶32

Heard Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.Priya Elizabeth Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶33

The insurer is impugning the award on the ground that, though the deceased was not a permanent employee with fixed income, the Tribunal gave 50% addition towards future prospects, instead of 40%.

¶34

It is true that the deceased was working as an Automobile Mechanic, and the respondents have no case that he was having a permanent job or income. So, the Tribunal ought to have taken only 40% addition towards future prospects. His notional income was taken as Rs.7,500/- and by giving 50% addition towards future prospects, his income

¶35

was taken as Rs.11,250/-. After deducting 50% towards

¶36

MACA No.44 of 2015

¶37

¶38

personal expenses, loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.11,47,500/-, applying the multiplier of 17. By giving 40% addition towards future prospects, his monthly income would be Rs.10,500/- instead of Rs.11,250/-. On deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 17, loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.10,71,000/-. So, Rs.76,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal, in excess of the eligible amount. But, at the same time, it could be seen that towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- and so, Rs.10,000/- more was liable to be awarded.

¶39

Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.40,000/- each to them, towards loss of consortium, amounting to Rs.80,000/- in total, but no amount was awarded. So, even though the Tribunal gave 50% addition towards future prospects, it will not exceed the eligible amount in total, as there was deficit under the head loss of estate, and no award under the head loss of consortium. When those amounts are also taken into account, the appellant would have been liable

¶40

MACA No.44 of 2015

¶41

¶42

to pay more amount than the amount now awarded by the Tribunal. So, no interference is warranted in the impugned award and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to

¶44

costs.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶47

smp

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. P.K.Velayudhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. P.K.Velayudhan

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

Joy K.D. Vs Jibin Jacob K.J

Suja @ Johna Suja Vs Jibin Jacob K.J.

N.M. Mathukutty Vs Suresh.K.K

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Susheela

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gopakumar

Ranjeev K.R. Vs Noorudeen P.A.