Motor accident death claim appeal by dependants seeking enhancement. The court raised notional monthly income to Rs.6,000 with 25% future prospects and revised consortium per Supreme Court precedents, awarding additional compensation of Rs.7,64,500 while preserving the insurer's right of recovery against owner and rider.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MACA.No.1750/12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MACA NO. 1750 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2012 IN OPMV NO.556 OF
2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/SPPL.3RD RESPONDENT:
BY ADVS. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
MACA.No.1750/12
2
BY ADVS. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.1750/12
3
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV). No.556 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of one Chandrasekharan, who died due the injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 30.04.2009. The deceased was the son of the 1st appellant, husband of the 2nd appellant and the father of the appellants 3 and 4.
MACA.No.1750/12
4
the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. They also raised a contention that the 1st respondent was riding the motorcycle without a valid driving licence. However, they admitted the coverage of the policy for the said vehicle. The quantum of compensation was disputed by them. To substantiate the contentions the appellant examined PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from their side.
MACA.No.1750/12
5
proportionate costs, subject to the right of the recovery granted to them. This appeal is submitted by the appellants in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.
MACA.No.1750/12
6
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[2014 (2)
SCC 735], under no circumstances the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- can be treated as unreasonable amount. Therefore, I do not find any reason to discard the claim of the appellants in this regard.
MACA.No.1750/12
7
Pranay Sethi (supra) . Similarly, a further sum of 10,000/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses as the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head was only Rs.5,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of consortium was only Rs.10,000/-. In the light of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others, 2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020 (3) KHC 760] ,all the appellants, being the mother, wife and children, were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, thereby making out a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. However, it is seen that, in addition to Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection. In Satinder Kaur (supra) , it was categorically observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that, when compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, no separate amount needs to be awarded for loss of love and affection. Therefore, such an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be adjusted against the compensation fixed by this Court under the head of loss of consortium, which would result in an additional amount of Rs.1,40,000/- under the head of
MACA.No.1750/12
8
loss of consortium. No amount is seen awarded under the head of loss of clothing and hence, a sum of Rs.5,00/- is awarded under the said head. Thus, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.7,64,500/- [6,09,000+5000+10000+500+140000].
In the result, this appeal is allowed. Award dated 17.02.2012 in O.P.(MV). No.556 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.7,64,500/- [Rupees seven lakhs sixty-four thousand and five hundred only] and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that as this court did not interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding the right of recovery granted to the 3rd respondent, they shall be at liberty to recover the additional compensation from the 1st and 2nd respondents after satisfaction of the judgment. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period
MACA.No.1750/12
9
of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, they fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
DG/16.3.24
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the claimant's son should be enhanced, taking into account the deceased's monthly income and conventional heads of damages?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶6
[2011 (13) SCC 236] · Who else cites this
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Relied on¶6
[2014 (2) SCC 735] · Who else cites this
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay SethiRelied on¶7
[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]
Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & OthersRelied on¶8
2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder KaurRelied on¶8
[2020 (3) KHC 760]
Kalyani
Sujatha
Sruthi (minor)
Sarath (minor)
Abdul Aziz
Saneesh Babu
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
