Santa vs Sunil - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 587/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

1 SANTHA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.ARUMUKHAN, KALLAMKADU VEEDU, PATTANCHERRY.P.O, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 ARUMUGHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THATTAMMA, KALLAMKADU VEEDU, PATTANCHERRY.P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD 3 ANEESH, AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUKHAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND ARUMUKHAN, S/O.THATTAMMA, KALLAMKADU VEEDU, PATTANCHERRY.P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

RESPONDENTS:

1 SUNIL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.P.M.VASU, PUTHANPULLY VEEDU, PANAYOOR.P.O, ATHIKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD 1ST FLOOR, MANGALAM TOWERS, OPPOSITE TOWN BUS STAND, TB ROAD, PALAKKAD. 3 RAMAKRISHNAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, ARIVAZHAKAN, OLD NO.2/122, NEW NO.2/23, ERUMANAYAKANPATTI, PALANI TALUK, DINDIGAL, TAMILNADU. * 4 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD (DELETED) GE PLAZA,AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA,PUNE,MAHARASTRA-411006. (THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 13/01/2023 IN IA 1/2022) 5 K.T.SALINI, W/O.SAJEESH KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN,MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR,ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

6 M.K.SIVANKUTTY, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANNATHU VEEDU,VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7 SATHYABHAMA, W/O.M.K.SIVANKUTTY,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD 8 ADITHYAN, S/O.SAJEESH KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MOTHER K T SALINI, MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR,ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9 S.ARYANANDHA, D/O.SAJEESH KUMAR,AGE NOT KNOWN(MINOR)REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MOTHER K.T.SALINI, MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD BY ADV SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

A minor child of 9 years by name Anil Kumar was unfortunately killed in a road accident, which occurred on 10.01.2011. He was the son of appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd appellant; and the accident occurred while they were travelling in a bus, into which the offending vehicle

collided in a rash and negligent manner. The child unfortunately succumbed to injuries and the claimants filed OP(MV) No.587/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (Tribunal), seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,27,000/- limited to Rs.6,00,000/-, but which has been awarded by the Tribunal only to the extent of

Rs.2,10,000/-. They thus assail the Award as being inadequate.

2. Sri.Binoy Vasudevan - learned counsel for the

appellants, argued that the primary reason for the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is that it has adopted the notional income of the deceased child in a whimsical manner. He argued that, going by the various judgments covering the field, including Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [2021 (6) KLT Online 1005],

Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors [(2023) 1 SCC 204] and Rajendra Sing & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [(2020) 7 SCC 256], the notional income ought to have been reckoned as a minimum of Rs.30,000/-, if not more. He then argued that the Tribunal erred in not having granted any amount under the head 'loss of consortium', though each of the appellants is entitled to

Rs.44,000/- each under that head, going by National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)].

3. Sri.Thomas M Jacob - learned standing counsel for

the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that the computations adopted by the Tribunal are without error, because the notional income of a child cannot be properly adjudicated; and therefore, that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- has been correctly granted. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the Insurance Company because, as rightly argued by Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, in Kurvan Ansari (supra), Meena Devi (supra) and Rajendra Sing (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that in the case of

death of children below 15 years, a minimum of Rs.30,000/- per annum has to be taken as the notional income. Going by such computation and adopting the admitted multiplier of 15, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' will have to be revised to Rs.4,50,000/-.

5. That said, it is without doubt that, in Pranay Sethi

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has postulated that an amount of Rs.40,000/-, with 10% increment after three years, have to be offered to each of the dependents of the deceased as compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'. This being denied by the learned Tribunal, cannot be approved by this Court.

6. However, before I go any further, I must say that the compensation for 'funeral expenses' awarded by the Tribunal, to a sum of Rs.25,000/-, do not appear to be proper because, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), not more than Rs.16,500/- could have been granted.

7. In the afore circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part in the following manner:

(a) The compensation under the head 'Loss of dependency' is revised to Rs.4,50,000/-, from Rs.1,75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, reckoning the notional income of the deceased child to be Rs.30,000/- per annum.

(b) An amount of Rs.1,36,000/- is awarded to the appellants as compensation for 'Loss of consortium' being guided by Pranay Sethi (supra) and Kurvan Ansari (supra).

(c) The compensation under the head 'Funeral expenses'

reduced to Rs.16,500/-, again guided by Pranay Sethi (supra). In all other respects, the Award of the Tribunal will stand in tact. Consequently, the appellants will be at full liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 8% as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is recovered. He will also be entitled to proportionate cost on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. Needless to say, while computing the interest as afore, the period of 154 days, being the delay in filing this appeal before this Court, shall stand excluded. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu