Full Judgment
MACA.No.3675/2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, MACA NO. 3675 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 1053/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, RESIDING AT ALAPPILLY HOUSE, KAIPOORIKKARA, MARAMPAILLY. 2 SUBAIDA, W/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.AHEMMED, RESIDING AT ALAPPILLY HOUSE, KAIPOORIKKARA, MARAMPAILLY. BY ADV.ANEY PAUL RESPONDENT/S: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL VEGETABLE MARKET SHOPPING COMPLEX, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542. BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No.3675/2019 2
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV). No.1053 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of one Ajmal due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 28.05.2016.
2. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle on which the deceased was pillion riding was hit by a lorry driven by the 2 nd respondent in the claim
petition. The said lorry was insured with the appellant. The deceased was aged 21 years at the time of the accident, and he was studying for B.Sc. Electronics in MES College, Marampilly. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.
3. The 3rd respondent, the Insurance Company, filed a
written statement admitting the coverage of the insurance policy for the lorry but disputed the liability on various grounds. Negligence, as well as the quantum of compensation, was also disputed by them. The said claim petition was tried along with O.P.(MV). No.1764 of 2016. MACA.No.3675/2019 3
4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A21
from the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondent. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and being the insurer of the same, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.15,36,800/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of petition till realization. This appeal is filed by the appellants in such circumstances, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. Heard Smt.Aney Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent Insurance Company.
6. The only issue to be considered relates to the quantum
of compensation. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is grossly inadequate. After perusing the records, I find some force in the said contention. It is to be noted that, even though a monthly income of 15,000/- was MACA.No.3675/2019 4 claimed, the Tribunal accepted the same as Rs.9,000/- and
calculated the compensation accordingly. The documents, Exts.A9 to A18, would show the qualification of the deceased. He was a student of B.Sc. Electronics in MES College, Marampilly and the certificate produced as Ext.A10 to A17 would clearly establish his academic proficiency as well as his abilities in extracurricular activities. Even when the method of computation of monthly income evolved as per the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2014 (2) SCC 735] are taken into consideration, the monthly income of an ordinary employee without any special skill and qualification, can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. The usual method that this Court is adopting for determining the monthly income of the subsequent years is to make an addition of Rs.500/- per year. When that method of computation is adopted, in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2016, a monthly income of Rs.10,500/- can be fixed even for an employee without any skill or qualification. However, the records referred
MACA.No.3675/2019 5 to above pertaining to the deceased would show that he was a brilliant student and had shown his proficiency in extracurricular activities as well. Therefore, considering his capabilities, a
slightly higher income should have been taken. Thus, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.12,000/-. In such circumstances, when the compensation for loss of dependency is re-worked with the revised monthly income and by applying the other parameters applied in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the amount of compensation would come to Rs.18,14,400/- [(12000+40%)x12x18x1/2]. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.13,60,800/-; thus, after deducting the same, the additional compensation would come to Rs.4,53,600/-.
7. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other
heads, except for the loss of love and affection, are reasonable. As far as the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards love and affection is concerned, the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company is that the same cannot be granted in view of the fact that the Tribunal has already awarded loss of consortium. The said contention has to be accepted in the light of United India
MACA.No.3675/2019 6 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020 (3) KHC 760]. Therefore, while re-working the compensation, Rs.50,000/- has to be deducted. Thus, the additional compensation receivable by the appellant is determined as Rs.4,03,600/- (Rupees four lakhs three thousand and six hundred only) In the result, this appeal is allowed: the award dated 26.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV) 1053/2016 is hereby modified by awarding an additional amount of Rs.4,03,600/- (Rupees four lakhs three thousand and six hundred only) and the 3 rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest 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. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/30.11.23