Partly allowed

Sulochana v. Vinodhan

Kerala HC3 Nov 2023MACA/996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court modified the notional monthly income of the deceased from ₹10,000 to ₹12,000 based on his qualifications as a carpenter with cosmetology training. Consequently, it enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency to ₹17,13,600 and directed the insurance company to pay an additional ₹2,85,600 wi

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation for loss of dependency granted; Respondent-Insurance Company directed to pay additional ₹2,85,600 with interest within two months.

Sulochana Vs Vinodhan — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 996 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 942/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 03/11/2021

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONERS 2 TO 4:

¶8

1SULOCHANA, AGED 62 YEARS
W/O UNNICHEKKAN, PARAM PARATHIL (H), METHULLIPADAM,
P.O. PUTHUR, THRISSUR-680 014,
2ROHINI, AGED 38 YEARS
D/O UNNICHEKKAN, PARAM PARATHIL(H), METHULLIPADAM,
P.O. PUTHUR, THRISSUR-680 014,
3SINEESH, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O UNNICHEKKAN, PARAM PARATHIL(H), METHULLIPADAM,
P.O. PUTHUR, THRISSUR-680014,
BY ADVS.SRI. A.R.NIMOD

¶9

 SRI. M.A.AUGUSTINE

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 VINODHAN S/O RAGMANI, NADUVIL PURAKKAL(H), P.O.POTTORE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680581, PIN – 680 581

¶12

2THILAKAN
S/O VASU, MULANGATTUKARA (H), P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680306, PIN – 680 306
3THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
GLOBAL PLAZA, OPP RAILWAY STATION, VANCHIKULAM ROAD,
POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI. R.DIVAKARAN RAMAKRISHNAN
 SRI. JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
 SRI. HARIKRISHNAN V.A(K/704/2019)
 SMT. KRISHNENDHU V.B(K/488/2019)
 SRI. K.J.SAJI ISAAC(S-82)
ELIZABETH VARKEY(E-25)

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

MACA No. 996 of 2022

-:2:-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2023

¶19

The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 03.11.2021 in OP (MV) No.942/2015. Petitioners are legal representatives of one Mr.Sijeesh who died due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred at 7.30 a.m. on 24.02.2015.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this

¶21

appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

¶22

Mr.Sijeesh was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-46/B-66 through Thrissur-Kuttanellur public road and was hit by a Mini Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-08/Y-1525 driven by the 2^nd respondent

¶23

MACA No. 996 of 2022

¶24

-:3:-

¶25

in a rash and negligent manner near Mariyapuram Church road and thereby he sustained serious injures. He was rushed to Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and while undergoing treatment there, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

¶26

Based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found the 2^nd respondent negligent and arrived at a total sum of `15,56,500/- as the compensation payable in favour of the petitioners. In the appeal, challenge was raised mainly against the quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency.

¶27

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the monthly income was notionally fixed by the Tribunal as `10,000/-. According to him the petitioners raised a claim in the Original Petition that the victim of the motor accident at the relevant time of his death was a Carpenter by occupation. Ext.A13 is also relied on by him to establish his occupation. The learned counsel contended that

¶28

MACA No. 996 of 2022

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

Sijeesh was a skilled worker and therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in considering `10,000/- as his monthly income for

¶31

calculation of the compensation payable. The learned counsel has conceded that the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads are reasonable and adequate and therefore interference is not warranted.

¶32

According to the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent notional income was fixed by the Tribunal as 10,000/- on the basis of the fixation adopted by the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** and **Syed Sadique and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited [(2014 (2) SCC 735)].** According to him, the monthly income fixed notionally as 10,000/-, being a reasonable sum, interference is totally unwarranted.

¶33

It is found from the claim raised by the petitioners in the Original Petition that the victim at the

¶34

MACA No. 996 of 2022

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

relevant time of his death was working as a Carpenter earning 15,000/- monthly. But Ext.A13 relied on by the petitioners would not show the occupation of the petitioner as a Carpenter. Rather, it establishes that he had passed vocational higher secondary course in Cosmetology and Beauty Parlour Management. The document was also marked in evidence unopposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that context, the Tribunal has relied on Ext.A13 and fixed the monthly income notionally as 10,000/-. It is found that an appeal challenging the quantum of monthly income considered by the Tribunal and the compensation arrived at for loss of dependency based on that was not filed by the respondents. Undoubtedly the qualification of the deceased for doing a work that requires his skill is established. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the monthly income to `12,000/-. There is absolutely no error in adopting the multiplier applicable and considering

¶37

the deduction towards personal expenditure. When

¶38

MACA No. 996 of 2022

¶39

-:6:-

¶40

compensation for loss of dependency is calculated afresh with the modified monthly income as `12,000/- and an

¶41

addition of 40% to it, in consideration of loss of his future prospects, the petitioner will get 17,13,600/- [((12,000/- x 40%) + 12,000/-) x 12 x 17 x 1/2]. 14,28,000/- awarded

¶42

by the Tribunal when adjusted against, the petitioner will get 2,85,600/- (17,13,600/- - `14,28,000/-) as additional compensation, which amount will also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filling of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. 3^rd respondent shall pay the additional compensation arrived at as above with interest accrued on it within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is received, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019.

¶43

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶44

MJL

Sulochana v. Vinodhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana v. Vinodhan

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

Vishnu Santhosh Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Jomon Thomas Vs Sudeep Das

Vasanth @ Hasanul Banna Vs M/S. Managing Director , Modern Hospital

Shemimol Vs Shaji

Vivek Vs Harikrishnan

Shahul Hameed Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited