Beeran and Others v. Muhammed Ilyyas and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945 MACA NO. 2311 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1315/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT ``` ## **`CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE`** ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1BEERAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.IMBICHALI, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2AYISHABI AGED 24 YEARS W/O.BEERAN, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 3FATHIMA AGED 24 YEARS D/O.BEERAN, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 4MUHAMMED AGED 22 YEARS S/O.BEERAN, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 5AMINA AGED 20 YEARS W/O.FAIZAL, THAZHE KALAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.POOVATTUPARAMBU, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1MUHAMMED ILLYAS AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOOWN, ERANHOTTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.VELLALASSERRY, REC, KOZHIKODE. - 673 601. ``` **MACA 2311/14** ..2.. - `2 AHAMMED MUNEER P. AGED 33 YEARS` - `S/O.KUTTY HASSAN, RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLALASSERY, NIT, KOZHIKODE-673601.` - `3 THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. CHAIRSMAC, GROUND FLOOR, 6/845 YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE – 673 017` ``` BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND ``` ``` SMT.DHANYA BABU-SC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA 2311/14** ..3.. ## **JUDGMENT** The parents and sisters of Ali - who was killed in a road accident on 09.01.2010, when the motor cycle he was riding was hit by the offending vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner – has filed this appeal, impugning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (“Tribunal” for short) in OP(MV)No.1315/2010 filed by them, on the ground that it is inadequate. 2. Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the primary reason why the compensation has been fixed low by the Tribunal is because, it has reckoned the notional income of the deceased to be a mere Rs.3,000/-, even though there is evidence to show that he was a Computer Mechanic, earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He then pointed out that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘Funeral Expenses’ and ‘Loss of Estate’ is exiguously low; while no amount has been granted under the head ‘Loss of Consortium’, even though this was mandatory as per _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v.**_ **MACA 2311/14** ..4.. _**Pranay Sethi**_ [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] . He thus prayed that this appeal be allowed. 3. Smt.Dhanya Babu – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted reckoning of the notional income of the deceased by the Tribunal is without error, as there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove either his avocation or his stated income. She added that, in fact, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation under the heads ‘Pain and Sufferings’ and ‘Loss of Love and Affection’, which is impermissible, going by _**United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @**_ _**Satwinder Kaur**_ [(2021) 11 SCC 780]. She thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 4. I have considered the afore submissions on the touchstone of the evidence and documents on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties with the express consent that they can be acted upon by this Court without dispute. 5. On the question of notional income of the appellant, I find favour with the submissions of Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan **MACA 2311/14** ..5.. because, in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has postulated that, even in the case of a person who is a ‘Coolie’, or with unascertainable income, in the year 2010 – when the accident occurred – the minimum figure to be reckoned as notional income is Rs.7,500/-. I see no reason why the Tribunal has denied this amount; even though I am in favour with it in holding that the avocation and income of the deceased has not been properly proved. 6. The notional income being so fixed, since the deceased was only 20 years at the time of the accident, the appellants are certainly entitled to have 40% of his income added as future prospects, as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). The multiplier to be adopted, as per _**Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation**_ [2010 (2) KLT 802], is ‘18’ and this has been incorrectly reckoned by the Tribunal to be ‘13’, presumably because it has gone by the age of the parents and not that of the deceased. 7. That said, in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the Hon’ble **MACA 2311/14** ..6.. Supreme Court has mandated that a minimum amount of Rs.15,000/- each be awarded under the heads ‘Funeral Expenses’ and ‘Loss of Estate’. The appellants are entitled to the same. 8. Finally, on the question of ‘Loss of Consortium’, again, **Pranay Sethi** (supra), makes it mandatory that an amount of Rs.40,000/- each be awarded to the parents, as parental consoritium, though it may not be eligible to other two appellants, who are the sisters of the deceased. 9. That said, however, the submission of Smt.Dhanya Babu, that no amounts could have been granted under the heads ‘Pain and Sufferings’ and ‘Loss of Love and Affection’ is on firm ground because, **Satwinder Kaur** (supra) declares so. In the afore circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed, in the following manner: a. The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is enhanced to Rs.11,34,000/-, from Rs.2,34,000/awarded by the Tribunal, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month, with 40% future prospects added to it and one half deducted as personal **MACA 2311/14** ..7.. expenses, since he was a bechelor, as per **Sarla Verma** (supra). b. The compensation under the head ‘Funeral Expenses’ is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.3,000/- as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). c. The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Estate’ is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). d. An additional amount of Rs.80,000/- is awarded as compensation for ‘Loss of Consortium’ to appellant Nos. 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). e. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘Pain and Sufferings’ and ‘Loss of Love and Affection’ is deleted, as per **Satwinder Kaur** (supra) In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal will remain unaltered. Needless to say, while calculating interest on the amount enhanced by this Court, a period of 1037 days - being the delay in filing this Appeal - shall stand excluded. **MACA 2311/14** ..8.. Consequently, the appellant will be entitled to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is realised. The appellant will also be entitled to proportionate costs as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced amounts. In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ACR ..9.. ## **MACA 2311/14** ## **APPENDIX OF MACA 2311/2014** |`APPELLANT EXHIBITS`|||| |---|---|---|---| |`ANNEXURE A1`|`MEMO DATED 27.5.2014 `|`ISSUED `|`BY`| ||`ADV.RASHMI.K.V.`<br>`TO`|`SRI.SANTOSH`|| ||`KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK`||| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`REPLY`<br>`ISSUED`<br>`BY`|`SRI.SANTOSH`|| ||`KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK DATED`||| ||`30.5.14`||| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`LETTER`<br>`ISSUED`<br>`TO`|`SRI.SANTOSH`|| ||`KUMAR.K.P.,`<br>`ADVOCATE`|`CLERK`|`BY`| ||`ADV.RASHMI.K.V. DATED 2.6.14`||| |`ANNEXURE A4`|`MEMO ISSUED BY ADV.ANILL`|`THOMAS`|`TO`| ||`SRI.SANTOSH KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK`||| ||`DATED 3.6.14`||| |`ANNEXURE A5`|`LETTER ISSUED BY ADV.ANIL THOMAS`||`TO`| ||`THE REGISTRAR HIGH COURT`|`OF KERALA`|| ||`DATED 4.6.14`||| |`ANNEXURE A6`|`AFFIDAVIT OF THE LAWYER AT`|`TRIBUNAL`||