Allowed

Kalavathy v. Mohammed P T

Kerala HC16 Mar 2023MACA/887/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal appeal challenging inadequate compensation awarded to legal heirs for a fatal accident. The Court set aside the split multiplier calculation and enhanced compensation to Rs. 4,77,692 based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,77,692 awarded with interest from date of petition to deposit date within two months.

Kalavathy Vs Mohammed P T — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MACA NO. 887 OF 2014

¶4

OPMV125/2010OFTHEMOTORACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶5

1KALAVATHY,AGED42YEARS,
W/O.LATEVIJAYAN,MANGALASSERIHOUSE,KADUKKAMKUNNU,MALAMPUZHA
POST,PALAKKAD-678005.

¶6

2 KISHOR, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.LATE VIJAYAN, MANGALASSERI HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNU, MALAMPUZHA POST, PALAKKAD-678 005.

¶7

3 HARSHA (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER KALAVATHY, MANGALASSERI HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNU, MALAMPUZHA POST, PALAKKAD-678 005.

¶8

4SWAYAMPRABHA,AGED65YEARS,
W/O.NARAYANAN,RESIDINGATMANGALASSERIHOUSE,KADUKKAMKUNNU,
MALAMPUZHAPOST,PALAKKAD-678005(1STAPPLICANTISTHEWIFE,
2NDAND3RDAPPLICANTSARETHECHILDRENAND4THAPPLICANTIS
MOTHEROFTHEDECEASEDVIJAYAN)

¶9

BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1MOHAMMEDPT,AGEDNOTKNOWN,
S/O.ASSAN,HOUSENO.5-218,THAZAHATHHOUSE,ANDIYOORKUNNUPOST,
MALAPPURAM-673637(R.C.OWNEROFBUSKL-13M-444).

¶12

2 ABDUL NASSAR K.T.,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ASSANAR HAJI, CHUNDATHIL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM-673 637, (DRIVER OF BUS KL-13M-444) DL. NO.10/818/2006.

¶13

3HDFCGENERALINSURANCECO.LTD.,
2NDFLOOR,ATHULYABUILDING,CHUNNAMBUTHARA,PALAKKAD678102
(INSUREROFBUSKL-13M-444)POLICYCUMCERTIFICATENO.VC
00014345000100VALIDW.E.F.17-11-2008TO16-11-2009.

¶14

BYADVS.
SRI.GEORGECHERIAN(SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHASUSANCHERIAN
SRI.GEORGEA.CHERIAN

¶15

THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON
16.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

MACA 887 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

The appellants are claimants in OP(MV) No.125 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. They are impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶20

The appellants are the legal heirs of Sri.Vijayan, who died in a motor traffic accident occured on 16.03.2009. While he was travelling in a car, a Stage Carriage bearing Registration No.KL-13/M-444 dashed against the car and he sustained fatal injuries, and he died on 17.03.2009. He was a 51 years old Peon working in a Co-operative Bank, Malampuzha, drawing monthly income of Rs.11,162/-. His mother, wife and children approached the Tribunal Claiming compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.9,83,072/-. Dissatisfied with the award amount, they have come up with this appeal.

¶21

The 2^nd respondent was the driver of the offending bus, 1^st respondent was its owner and the 3^rd respondent was its Insurer.

¶22

The death of Sri.Vijayan in the accident, and the Policy of the offending the vehicle are not in dispute.

¶23

Before the Tribunal, PWs1 and 2 were examined, Exts A1 to A29 and X1 to X3 were marked.

¶24

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

¶25

MACA 887 of 2014

¶26

¶27

Heard learned counsel Sri.U.Balagangadharan appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Smt.Latha Susan Cherian appearing for the contesting 3^rd respondent.

¶28

The main grievance of the appellants is that the learned Tribunal applied split multiplier on the ground that the deceased was going to retire on 30.04.2016. Different multiplicands were taken, one till the date of retirement and another one thereafter. The Apex Court has time and again deprecated the practice of applying split multiplier in assessing compensation for loss of dependency. In Valli vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in [2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1190 (SC)] the Apex Court affirmed the need of applying the multiplier as laid down in various decisions including Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. So the Tribunal went wrong in applying split multiplier while computing dependency compensation. Ext.A1 Salary Certificate shows that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary @ Rs.11,162/-. As he was aged 51 years, he was eligible for 15% addition towards future prospects. So his monthly income would have been taken @ Rs.12,836/(11,162 + 15%). Since he was having four dependants, ¼ has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So the balance income would have been @ Rs.9,627/-. The multiplier applicable was 11. So the loss of

¶29

MACA 887 of 2014

¶30

¶31

dependency could have been assessed as Rs.12,70,764/- (9,627X11X12). The appellants were already paid an amount of Rs.7,53,072/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. So, they are eligible to get balance amount of - Rs.5,17,692/(12,70,764 7,53,072/-) under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶32

Towards loss of estate, the appellants were awarded only Rs.5,000/- by the Tribunal. going by the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , they are eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So they will get the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘loss of estate’.

¶33

Under the head funeral expenses, the appellants were awarded Rs.25,000/- by the Tribunal. As per Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , they are eligible to get Rs.15,000/- only. So Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted from the funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each under the head loss of love and affection as well as loss of consortium. As per Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , the appellants, who are the mother, wife and children of the deceased are eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium, totalling to Rs.1,60,000/-. Since the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- in total, Rs.40,000/- is liable to be deducted from that amount.

¶35

The compensation under all other heads seems to be

¶36

MACA 887 of 2014

¶37

¶38

reasonable and the same needs no interference.

¶39

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Amounts deducted in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of dependency	Rs.7,53,072/-	Rs.12,70,764/ -		Rs.5,17,692/-
Loss of estate	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.15,000/-		Rs.10,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of love and affection / Loss of consortium	Rs.2,00,000/-	Rs.1,60,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
Total			Rs.50,000/-	Rs.5,27,692/-

¶40

Enhanced compensation is Rs. 4,77,692 /- (5,27,692 - 50,000/-)

¶41

In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced - compensation of Rs.4,77,692/[(5,17,692 + 10,000) (10,000 +40,000)].

¶42

The learned Tribunal fixed the liability to compensate the appellants on the 3^rd respondent, as it was holding valid Policy of the offending vehicle, as on the date of accident, and that finding is not disputed. So the 3^rd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,77,692/(Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two only) in the Bank account of

¶43

MACA 887 of 2014

¶44

¶45

appellants 1 to 4, in equal share, with interest @ 7.5% 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 appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶49

DSV/16.03.2023.

Kalavathy v. Mohammed P T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalavathy v. Mohammed P T

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

Ratheesh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Lakshmi Vs S.Rajendran