A.C. Mathai and Aliyamma Mathai v. M.T. Simon, Maneesh P.R., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1944 MACA NO. 2266 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 07.05.2012 IN OP(MV)NO.846/2010 OF** **MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2:** **1 A.C. MATHAI, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 61 YEARS, ARAMKULATHIL HOUSE, VADAKARA P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM.** **2 ALIYAMMA MATHAI, W/O.A.C.MALTHAI, AGED 56 YEARS, ARAMKULATHIL HOUSE, VADAKARA PO, VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN SRI.CAESAR V PILLA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :** **1 M.T. SIMON, S/O.THOMAS, MANATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2 MANEESH P.R., S/O.RAJAPPAN,** **PATHINETTILCHIRA HOUSE, NEAR SNDP TEMPLE,** MACA No.2266 of 2012 ..2.. **MANIYAPARAMBU KARA, AIMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.** **3 I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNANKERI ESTATE, 3RD FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-31.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR 12884 R3 BY SRI.K.B.RAMANAND R2 BY SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.2266 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **MACA No.2266 of 2012** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal arises out of award dated 07.05.2012 in O.P.(MV)No.846 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The appellants herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal. Respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The allegation of the appellants is that the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Biju, who met with a MACA No.2266 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** fatal accident on 21.03.2010. The deceased was riding as a pillion rider on a two wheeler ridden by one Alesh P.Y. from north to south, along the eastern side of ArayankavuAmballoor road. When they reached at the place of occurrence, a limited stop bus driven by the second respondent in a most rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction went off and hit against the two wheeler. Thereby, the traveller on the motorcycle sustained injuries and Biju died in consequence thereof. 4. R3 filed written statement disputing the accident and negligence. At the same time, quantum of compensation also was disputed, while admitting policy to the vehicle involved in the accident. 5. As against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,52,000/-, after appraising evidence comprised of the oral version of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A14, MACA No.2266 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** when this original petition was disposed of along with connected O.P.(MV)No.845 of 2010. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants canvassed increase in the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- and also 40% addition in this case, where admittedly the deceased Biju was aged 36 years (below 40 years) at the time of the accident following the ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** and in [2017 16 SCC 650], **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.** This claim is not opposed and therefore, I am inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- with 40% addition following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case(Supra). Thus, the amount would come to Rs.7,500+40%=Rs.10,500/-. The multiplier applied by the MACA No.2266 of 2012 ..6.. Tribunal as '16' is incorrect and the proper multiplier is '15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency income is re-calculated as under; 10,500x15x12/1x2=9,45,000/- Out of which, Rs.2,16,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Rs.9,45,000-Rs.2,16,000= **Rs.7,29,000/-** more is granted under the head loss of dependency income. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants pressed for increase in the conventional and traditional heads following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case(Supra). Therefore, towards loss of estate, **Rs.12,500/-** more is granted, since the Tribunal granted only Rs.2,500/- under this head. Towards loss of consortium, **Rs.80,000/-** is granted at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Towards funeral expenses, **Rs.7,500/-** is granted in addition to Rs.7,500/granted by the Tribunal. MACA No.2266 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 8. The Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.20,000/ under the head loss of love and affection. The same are impermissible in view of the ratio of the decision in [AIR 2020 SC 3076], **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur.** Therefore, Rs.25,000/- stands disallowed. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of **Rs.8,04,000/-** (Rupees Eight lakh Four Thousand only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The insurance company is liable to pay the same. It is noticed that court fee for Rs.7,00,000/alone was paid by the appellants and they are liable to pay MACA No.2266 of 2012 ..8.. court fee for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.3,56,000/-. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.3,560/- in the name of M.A.C.T., Ernakulam as additional court fee. The insurance company shall deposit the remaining amount in the name of the appellants, in equal proportion, within two months, and on deposit, the appellants can release the same. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj