Allowed

Remya.C.R v. C.T.K.Vinodan

Kerala HC13 Feb 2024MACA/1758/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought enhancement of compensation for death in a motor accident. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, increasing compensation by applying correct income tax deductions, future prospects, and multiplier based on Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, and awarding loss of consortium per Satinder Kaur.

What did the court decide?

Award modified; additional compensation of Rs. 17,50,458/- granted to appellants, payable by insurer within three months.

Remya.C.R Vs C.T.K.Vinodan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945

¶4

MACA NO. 1758 OF 2013

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.08.2012 IN OP(MV)No.606/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA

¶6

APPELLANT/APPLICANTS:

¶7

1 REMYA.C.R, AGED 22 YEARS W/O.LATE N SOORAJ, PUNATHIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KOLLAM P O, VIYOOR VILLAGE, VIYOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST

¶8

2 ANUVIND, AGED 6 YEARS S/O.LATE N SOORAJ, MINOR, PUNATHIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KOLLAM P O, VIYOOR VILLAGE, VIYOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST 3 DEVANANDA, AGED 4 YEARS D/O.N SOORAJ, MINOR, PUNATHIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KOLLAM P O, VIYOOR VILLAGE, VIYOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST BY ADVS. SRINATH GIRISH V.NAMITHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND APPLICANT NO.4:

¶10

1 C.T.K.VINODAN, S/O.UNNI, CHOWAIYINTAVIDA THAZHA KUNIYIL, NADAPURAM P O, KOZHIKODE DIST-673504

¶11

2 P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN PUTHUKUDI HOUSE AGED 41 YEARS RAYARANGOTH P O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST-673102 3 MS.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, A1_MUBARAK BUILDING, ADODI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST-673101

¶12

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶13

¶14

4 SOUMINI W/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, PUNATHIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KOLLAM P O, VIYYOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673504

¶15

BY ADVS. SMT.K.LASITHA SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellants were the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.606/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatatkara. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of one Sooraj N, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 06.01.2009. The deceased was the husband of the 1st appellant, father of the appellants 2 and 3 and the son of the 4th appellant.

¶21

The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the said Sooraj was hit by a bus bearing registration No.KL-186867, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was working as an Engineer on the Kerala State Electricity Board with a monthly income of Rs.16,846/-, and he was 29 years old at the time of the accident. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation.

¶22

The 1st and 2nd respondents filed written statements denying the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. It was also pointed out that the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance

¶23

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶24

¶25

policy issued by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, if at all there is any liability, that should be indemnified by the 3rd respondent.

¶26

The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying

¶27

the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. The said claim petition was tried along with O.P. (M.V.)No.1160/2009 which arose from the very same accident.

¶28

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A7 and

¶29

from the side of the respondents Ext.B1, the copy of the policy was marked. The Tribunal, after appreciating the materials placed on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.21,53,226/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted by the appellants in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶31

¶32

Heard Smt. V. Namitha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

¶33

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is reasonable or not. The learned counsel for the appellants points out that, even though the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of the salary certificate produced was accepted, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospects and the multiplier applied was not with reference to the age of the deceased. It is also contended that, the deduction made towards income tax was 30%, which was extremely on the higher side.

¶34

On perusal of the records I find force in the said contentions. Regarding the monthly income, the Tribunal accepted it as Rs.16,581/-, which is calculated after deducting the allowances receivable by the deceased. The said amount can be accepted as the monthly income. However, as regards the deduction made by the Tribunal towards income tax, the rate of 30% appears to be too high. As per the income tax slab, which prevailed at the relevant time, the tax payable was 10% for the

¶35

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶36

¶37

amount above Rs.1,50,000/-. In this case, the annual income of the deceased, when calculated by taking the monthly income as Rs.16,581/-, would come to Rs.1,98,972/-. The taxable income would come to Rs.48,972/- and the 10% of the same would come to Rs.4897/-. Thus, after deducting the tax, the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,94,075/-. Since the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the accident and he was employed in a regular post with a regular monthly income, the addition to be made towards future prospects should be 50% in the light of

¶38

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4)

¶39

KLT 662 (S.C.)]. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, considering the age of the deceased, which was 29 years, the multiplier to be applied is '17' as prescribed in Sarla

¶40

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802].

¶41

Since, the deceased left behind four dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4^th . Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the above criteria, the amount of compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.37,11,684/- [(1,94,075 + 50%) x 17 x ¾]. The amount

¶42

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶43

¶44

already awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.21,23,226/- and thus the additional compensation would come to Rs.15,88,458/-.

¶45

When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- only toward funeral expenses, whereas the actual amount payable was Rs.15,000/- in the light of Pranay Sethi (supra) . Accordingly, a further sum of Rs.12,000/is awarded under the said head. Similarly, regarding loss of estate, the amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.5,000/-, and in the light of Pranay Sethi (supra) , a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded.

¶46

The next head to be considered is the loss of consortium. In the light of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780] and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others [2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (S.C.)], all the appellants being the wife, child and the mother of the deceased are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/each, thereby making of a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.10,000/- and in addition to the above, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss

¶47

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶48

¶49

of love and affection. In Satwinder Kaur (supra), it was categorically held by the Honourable Supreme Court that when compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, further amount need not be granted for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the said amount can be adjusted against the amount fixed by this Court towards the loss of consortium. Accordingly, the additional compensation for the loss of consortium is determined as Rs.1,40,000/-. Thus, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.17,50,458/- (15,88,458 + 10,000 +12,000+1,40,000).

¶50

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara in O.P. (M.V.) No. 606/2009 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.17,50,458/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand four hundred and fifty-eight only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of PAN card, Aadhar Card and

¶51

M.A.C.A No. 1758 of 2013

¶52

¶53

Bank details to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above within a period of two months from the 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

rpk

Remya.C.R v. C.T.K.Vinodan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remya.C.R v. C.T.K.Vinodan

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

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Shyamili v. Vs Prasannan

Remani.v.K Vs Prasannan

Dhilhesh Vs Kumaresan

Sakunthala *[Died] Vs Baiju.M.S

Shantimol Vs Appukuttan Nair