Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susheela

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023MACA/651/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against excessive compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court held the compensation for dependency and loss of affection exceeded limits set by Supreme Court precedents and denied pain and suffering. The claimant directed to refund Rs.97,800.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; claimant directed to refund excess compensation of Rs.97,800 with interest.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Susheela — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 7THDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA,1944

¶2

MACA NO. 651 OF 2019

¶3

OPMV 161/2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THODUPUZHA

¶4

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶5

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
VISHNU BUILDING, K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM.

¶6

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

¶7

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

¶8

SUSHEELA, W/O SAJI, KUNNEL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM P.O.,
MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686 661.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶10

THISMOTORACCIDENTSCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY
HEARDON03.03.2023,ALONGWITHCO.169/2019,THECOURTON
07.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

MACA 651 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.169 of 2019

¶12

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶14

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 7THDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA,1944

¶15

CO NO. 169 OF 2019
IN
MACA NO.651 OF 2019

¶16

CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT:

¶17

SUSHEELA, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶18

W/O.SAJI, KUNNEL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM P.O., MANJALLOOR
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶19

BY ADV.SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶20

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:

¶21

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, VISHNU BUILDING,
K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682 020.

¶22

BY ADV SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶23

THISCROSSOBJECTIONHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON
03.03.2023,ALONGWITHMACA.651/2019,THECOURTON07.03.2023
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

MACA 651 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.169 of 2019

¶25

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The 3^rd respondent-Insurer in OP(MV)No.161 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, is the appellant herein, assailing the award, as the compensation awarded is excessive. The respondent/claimant filed Cross Objection No.169 of 2019, alleging that the compensation awarded is inadequate.

¶28

The respondent is the mother and legal heir of deceased Anand Saji, who died in the motor accident occurred on 05.10.2014. The deceased was a 23 year old driver, working in Sun TV Network Ltd. earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The respondent claimed composition of Rs.35,00,000/-, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.17,51,940/-.

¶29

The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.9,750/- and giving 40% increase towards future prospects, fixed his income @ Rs.13,650/- (9,750 + 40%). According to the appellant, the notional income fixed was on the higher side and it has to be revised. But according to the respondent/claimant, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/-. But no reliable evidence was there to accept her plea. Going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] , since the accident was in the

¶30

MACA 651 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.169 of 2019 4

¶31

year 2014, the deceased, who was a 23 year old Driver, was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.9,500/-. With 40% addition towards future prospects, his monthly income would have been fixed @ Rs.13,300/- (9,500 +40%). Since he was a bachelor, 50% had to be deducted towards personal expenses. So his monthly income could be taken as Rs.6,650/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency would have been assessed as Rs.14,36,400/-. She was awarded Rs.14,74,200/- by the Tribunal under head ‘loss of dependency’. So, there is an excess amount of Rs.37,800/- awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶32

Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-. As per the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , the respondent was eligible to get Rs.40,000/- only. So there is an excess of Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of love and affection’.

¶33

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-. This being a death case, the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ ought not have been allowed by the Tribunal in favour of the legal heir as the pain and suffering was personal in nature, going by the decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs.

¶34

MACA 651 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.169 of 2019

¶35

¶36

Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (Deceased) Through His Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosekan and Another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 691].

¶37

Though the respondent/claimant sought for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, she could not produce any materials to substantiate her claim for enhancement. So she is not entitled to get enhancement of compensation under any heads, whereas she is liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.97,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Amounts deducted in appeai
Loss of dependency	Rs.14,74,200/-	Rs.14,36,400/-	Rs.37,800/-
Loss of love and affection	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-	……	Rs.50,000/-
Total			Rs.97,800/-

¶39

In the result, the cross objection is dismissed and the appeal is

¶40

allowed directing the respondent/claimant to refund the excess amount of Rs.97,800/(Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only)

¶41

MACA 651 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.169 of 2019 6

¶42

awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted across the Bar that 50% of the award amount was deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal. So, while depositing the balance amount, the appellant can deduct Rs.97,800/- and its interest from the total award amount due to the respondent. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount in the bank account of the respondent/claimant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, 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 respondent towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶43

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent shown above and the cross objection is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶46

DSV/04.03.2023.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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 P.K.Velayudhan

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gopakumar

Ranjeev K.R. Vs Noorudeen P.A.