Allowed

Annamma Abraham@Santhamma v. the Divisional Manager,National Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024MACA/2374/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident claims appeal seeking enhanced compensation for the death of a 64-year-old in a lorry-motorcycle collision. The High Court revised notional monthly income to Rs.9,000/- and allowed additional compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- with 8% interest from date of petition till realization, with proportionate costs, payable within three months.

Annamma Abraham@Santhamma Vs the Divisional… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

MACA.No.2374/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA,

¶7

1945

¶8

MACA NO. 2374 OF 2019

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2018 IN OPMV NO.920 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, PATHANAMTHITTA / IV ADDL. M.A.C.T.

¶10

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 ANNAMMA ABRAHAM @SANTHAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABRAHAM MATHEW, PALAVILAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, MANAKKALA, ADOOR.

¶12

2 SHEEBA ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH SAM, PALAVILAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, MANAKKALA, ADOOR, NOW RESIDING AT 31-B, MADRAS BHATTAI ROAD, BILLIVAKKAM, CHENNAI.

¶13

3 JOHN THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.THOMASKUTTY, KUMARACHEMPARAMBIL, MOLY VILLA, VATTAKARIKKOM,THINKALKARIKKOM P.O, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM.

¶14

4 SHAUN JOHN, AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.JOHN THOMAS, MINOR, KUMARACHEMPARAMBIL, MOLY VILLA, VATTAKARIKKOM, THINKALKARIKKOM P.O, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM.

¶15

5 SREYA JOHN, AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.JOHN THOMAS, MINOR, AGED 8 YEARS, KUMARACHEMPARAMBIL, MOLYVILLA,VATTAKARIKKOM,THINKALKARIKKOM P.O, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. (APPELLANS 3 TO 5 REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND NEXT FRIEND BY THOMASKUTTY, S/O. YOHANNAN, KUMARACHEMPARAMBIL, MOLY VILLA, VATTAKARIKKOM,

¶16

MACA.No.2374/2019

¶17

¶18

THINKALKARIKKOM P.O, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM)

¶19

BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH

¶20

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶21

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NELSON COMPLEX, PUTHIYIDOM, P.B.NO.60, KAYAMKULAM-690 502.

¶22

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

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.No.2374/2019

JUDGMENT

Appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV). No.920 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of one Abraham Mathew, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 09.05.2013.

¶28

According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-2/X-90, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained serious injuries, and he was taken to Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta and from there to Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry. However, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged 64 years at the time of the accident. He was the husband of the 1st appellant, father of the second appellant, father-in-law of the 3rd appellant and grandfather of appellants 4 and 5. According to them, he was an agriculturist and rubber tapper with a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

¶29

MACA.No.2374/2019

¶30

¶31

The 3^rd respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement, wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the lorry. However, they denied the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent and also disputed the quantum of compensation.

¶32

The said claim petition was tried along with O.P. (MV). No.921 of 2013. The evidence in these cases consists of oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A32. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent in driving the lorry and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.4,92,721/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances.

¶33

Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla), learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

¶34

The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement of compensation is to be granted or

¶35

MACA.No.2374/2019 5

¶36

not. After carefully going through the materials on record, I find that under the head of compensation for loss of dependency, the amount awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate. It is also noted that, even though a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal adopted only Rs.6,000/-, which appears to be lower, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013. Of course, it is true that there are no materials to substantiate the monthly income; however, when the method of computation of monthly income evolved from the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[2014 (2) SCC 735], is adopted, the monthly income for the year 2013 can be reasonably fixed as Rs.9,000/- [fixing the basic monthly income as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004 and making an addition of Rs.500/- per year to determine the monthly income for the subsequent years]. In the absence of any better evidence, such monthly income is to be accepted for assessing the compensation. The other parameters adopted by the Tribunal in assessing the loss of dependency appear to be reasonable,

¶37

MACA.No.2374/2019

¶38

¶39

and therefore, no interference in this regard is necessary. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation with the revised monthly income, the compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,04,000/- [9000 x 12 x 7 x 2/3]. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.3,36,000/- and thus, the additional compensation would come to Rs.1,68,000/-. 7. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are reasonable and does not warrant any enhancement. However, the learned counsel for the appellants points out that no amount was seen awarded towards the pain and suffering of the deceased. It is evident from the records that the death occurred while the deceased was undergoing treatment in the hospital.. Therefore, a notional amount can be granted towards compensation for the pain and suffering of the deceased. Accordingly a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head. Thus, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.1,78,000/- [1,68,000+10,000].

¶40

In the result, this appeal is allowed. Award dated 18.09.2018 in O.P.(MV). No.920 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- [Rupees one lakh seventy-eight thousand only]

¶41

MACA.No.2374/2019 7 with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till realization with 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 the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period 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.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶44

DG/14.3.24

Annamma Abraham@Santhamma v. the Divisional Manager,National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Abraham@Santhamma v. the Divisional Manager,National Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Lovely Sebastian Vs Jobson Chacko

Ammini Joy Karmal Sebastian Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Annex Gireesh (Minor) Vs Sunny Sebastian, S/O.Sebastian

Nandanan K.N Vs the Divisional Manager

Mohammed Najeem Vs Saji.P.R.

Resmi R Vs State of Kerala