Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation and direc...

Abdulla and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S.Dias
Judgment Date
2021-11-08
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is allowed. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,48,000 to Rs. 4,36,500 by adopting a notional monthly income of Rs. 3,250 (following Ramachandrappa), with one-third deduction for personal living expenses, plus Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate. The enhanced amount must be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest (7.5% per annum) before the Tribunal within two months, and on deposit, the Tribunal shall distribute the amount between appellants 1 and 2 in the ratio 50:50 as per law, along with costs. The judgment directs the appellate court to ensure payment from the insurer accordingly.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and directions for deposit and distribution.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdulla
  • Ayasha Beevi
  • Sunitha
  • Shameena
  • Junaida

Respondents

  • O. Rajan
  • A.M. Maheshkumar
  • The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.I. Abdul Rasheed
  • • K.A. Shamsudeen

Counsels for Respondents

  • • A.R. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The appellants ( Abdulla, Ayasha Beevi, Sunitha, Shameena, and Junaida ) challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor’s common award in O.P. (MV) Nos. 1041/2004 and 716/2004, which had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,48,000 with interest and costs to the legal representatives of the deceased Shafeer, who died in a highway collision involving a car driven by him and a bus. The insurer (3rd respondent) contested, while the first two respondents did not contest and were ex parte. The appellants argued that the deceased was a driver by profession; Exts. A9 (driving licence) and A10 (passport) show age 21 and occupation; they claimed a monthly income of Rs. 3,250, supported by evidence. The Tribunal fixed a lower notional income of Rs. 2,500, and applied deductions under the Second Schedule. The High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramachandrappa, fixes the notional income at Rs. 3,250 and recalculates compensation, including Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate, resulting in a total of Rs. 4,36,500. The appeal is allowed, enhancing compensation by Rs. 1,88,500 with 7.5% interest, and directing deposit before the Tribunal within two months for distribution to the appellants. The decision is by Justice C.S. Dias, Single Judge.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased was a driver by profession, as evidenced by Ext.A9 (driving licence) and Ext.A10 (passport), with a notional monthly income of Rs. 3,250, which should be reflected in the compensation under Section 163A. They argued that the Tribunal erred in adopting a lower notional income (Rs. 2,500) and applied the Second Schedule to reduce dependency benefits. Citing Ramachandrappa (2011) 13 SCC 236, they urged fixing the notional income based on actual earnings for a 21-year-old driver, not a generic figure. They sought enhanced compensation by including reasonable amounts for funeral expenses (Rs. 2,000) and loss of estate (Rs. 2,500) and argued the total should reflect the actual loss to the family, with interest and costs as directed by law.

Contentions of Respondents

The 3rd respondent insurer defended against the enhanced claim, disputing the age and income of the deceased and contending the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; the insurer also contested the quantum and whether a higher notional income should be applied. The respondents argued that the tribunal’s findings on negligence and assessment of earnings should be treated with caution, and highlighted that the age and income estimates require careful scrutiny as per the evidence led, with reliance on the policy terms in limiting liability. The two non-contesting respondents remained ex parte.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited[(2011) 13 SCC 236]PositiveCited to fix the notional income for the deceased in line with a Supreme Court standard for 2004 earnings; applied as a yardstick to determine compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdulla and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1041/2004 OF MOTOR** ## **ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - 1 ABDULLA, S/O.BAVAKUTTY, PALAKKATTIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY, THURUTH, ALUVA. - 2 AYASHA BEEVI W/O. ABDULLA PALAKKATTIL HOUSE, THAMARASSEY, THURUTH, ALUVA, - 3 SUNITHA,W/O. SULAIMAN PUTHEN - KULANGARA HOUSE, AMBALAPADI,PALLIKKARA. - 4 SHAMEENA W/O. NOUSHAD KALLOOKADANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGAMANADU. - 5 JUNAIDA W/O. NOUSHAD THEKKEKANNOTH HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPADY, EDATHALA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - 1 O.RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, GEETHA NIVAS, O.P.VENGAD, ANJARAKKANDY (VIA), TALASSERY. - 2 A.M.MAHESHKUMAR S/O. M.SREEDHARAN VALLIL HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., THALASSERY. **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **2** 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KANNUR. BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants were the petitioners in O.P (MV) No.1041/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Shafeer (deceased) – the son of the appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of the appellants 3 to 5. It was their case that : on 06.04.2004 , while the deceased was driving a car bearing Reg.No.KLO-837 from Edappal to Kuttipuram, through the Edappal-Kuttipuram State Highway, when the car reached Nadakkavu, a bus bearing Reg. No.KL-13K 4363 (bus), driven by the 2[nd ] respondent in a negligent manner, hit the car. The deceased fell off the road and sustained fatal injuries. Even though he was taken to a **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **4** Private Hospital at Edappal, his life could not be saved. The deceased was a driver by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,250/-. The car was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. Hence the appellants claimed an amount of Rs.5,02,499/from the respondents which was limited to Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The legal representatives of another deceased - passenger in the car had also filed O.P (MV) No.716/2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation from the respondents. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte. 5. The 3[rd] respondent had filed separate written statements in both the claim petitions contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The 3[rd] respondent also disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. 6. The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the two claim petitions. **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **5** 7. The petitioners in the two claim petitions produced and marked Exts.A1 to A12 in evidence. The 3[rd] respondent produced and marked Ext.B1 insurance policy in evidence. 8. The Tribunal, by its common award, allowed the captioned claim petition by permitting the appellants 1 and 2 to realise from the 3[rd] respondent, an amount of Rs.2,48,000/- with interest and cost. 9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal. 10. Heard; Sri.K.I.Abdul Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri.A.R.George, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- insurer. 11. The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just? 12. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellants **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **6** had averred that the deceased was a driver by profession. They had produced Ext.A9 driving licence to prove that the deceased was a driver by profession. The appellants had contended that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,250/-. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month. 14. Following the yardstick in the afore-cited decision and taking into account the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004 and that the appellants had claimed that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.3,250/-, I have no hesitation to hold that the deceased's notional monthly income can safely be fixed at Rs.3,250/-. 15. Ext.A9 driving licence and Ext.A10 passport prove that the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **7** his death. 16. In view of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988, the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,48,000/-. However, 1/3rd of the above amount has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation amount for loss of dependency works out to to Rs.4,32,000/-. In addition to the above amount, the appellants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.2,000/towards ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.2,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a total amount of Rs,4,36,500/-, instead of Rs.2,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,88,500/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs before **MACA NO. 1964 OF 2009** **8** the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the appellants 1 & 2 in the ratio of 50:50 and in accordance with law. ma/09.11.2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**