K. Janardhanan and others v. Rajasekhara V. and others

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 13/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , ``` ## `PALAKKAD` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1K.JANARDHANAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KUNCHU, THEKKECHALLA, NATTUKAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 554. 2GIRIJA AGED 48 YEARS W/O.K.JANARDHANAN, THEKKECHALLA, NATTUKAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 554. 3SHREYAS J. AGED 24 YEARS S/O.K.JANARDHANAN, THEKKECHALLA, NATTUKAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 554. BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY K.VIJINA K.V.ANTONY ARUL MURALIDHARAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1RAJASEKHAR V. S/O.KOMALAVALLI K., AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT 36/665, VISWASREE COLONY, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 002. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL 9/AA-4899). 2SATHEESHKUMAR S/O.KUNCHUMANI, AGE NOT KNOWN, PADINJAKKARA, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD, PIN -678 622. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL 9/AA-4899). 3HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. 2ND FLOOR, KANAKATH TOWER, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAT JUNCTION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001. (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL 9/AA-4899), (POLICY NO.231120023432220100 VALIDITY FROM 16/4/2013 TO 15/4/2014). ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 4DHIJEES S/O.MANI, AGE NOT KNOWN, THEKKECHALLA, NATTUKAL POST, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 554 (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.TN-38/BH-1434). 5IIFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.16, VENKATAVA ROUND ROAD, MAHALINGAPURAM, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU,PIN - 642 002 (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL 9/AA-4899) (POLICY NO.1-IXAOSVIAP400, POLICY 82984749, VALID FROM 14/2/2013 TO 14/2/2014). BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) BINOY VASUDEVAN(K/001751/1999) MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) P.JACOB MATHEW K.S.SANTHI LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN ALEXY AUGUSTINE GEORGE A.CHERIAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` This appeal, filed by the legal heirs of late K.Janardhanan - who is the son of the 1[st] among them and the husband and father of the 2[nd] and 3[rd] among them respectively – is filed being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (“Tribunal” for short) in OP(MV)No.13/2014 filed by them. ``` ``` 2.Since the facts are not in dispute, I will proceed directly to the controversy projected. ``` ``` 3.Smt.K.Vijina – learned counsel for the ``` ``` appellants, submitted that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal, for awarding ``` ``` compensation for “Loss of Dependency”, was ``` ``` woefully insufficient because it adopted ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` Rs.4,500/- alone. She added that the Tribunal ``` ``` erred in not granting any amount as compensation for “Loss of Consortium”, as also under the head ``` ``` “Loss of Estate”. She thus prayed that the impugned Award of the Tribunal be modified, ``` ``` granting the enhancement sought for. ``` ``` 4.Even though there are two insurance ``` ``` companies on the party array, it is conceded ``` ``` that 3[rd] respondent alone is responsible. ``` ``` 5.Smt.Latha Susan Cherian – learned ``` ``` Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, argued ``` ``` that, not merely is the quantum of compensation ``` ``` awarded by the Tribunal just and fair; but that ``` ``` it has actually granted Rs.1,00,000/- under the head “Loss of Love and Affection” and ``` ``` Rs.25,000/- for “Pain and Suffering”, which is not eligible to the appellants. She additionally submitted that the amount towards “funeral ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` expenses” could not have exceeded Rs.15,000/-, going byNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662]. ``` ``` 6.When I evaluate the afore submissions on ``` ``` the touchstone of the evidence on record - ``` ``` copies of which have been made available to this Court by the learned counsel for the parties ``` ``` across the Bar, with the express consent that they can be acted upon, without dispute - I must say that I find force in the submissions of both sides. ``` ``` 7.This is because, the Tribunal has taken ``` ``` the notional income of the deceased, who was 20 years age at the time of the accident, as being a mere Rs.6,000/-, even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited[(2011) 13 SCC 236], has postulated the ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` standardization of income of a person with un- ascertainable one in the year 2013 - when the accident in this case occurred - to be Rs.9,000/-. When 40% future prospects is added to it, the income to be adopted ought to have been Rs.12,600/-; and on such yardstick, the compensation for “Loss of Dependency” eligible to the appellants would be Rs.13,60,800/-. ``` ``` 8.That apart, since petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal could not have denied them compensation under the head “Loss of Consortium”, which ought to have been Rs.80,000/-; and similarly, under the head “Loss of Estate”, they are certainly entitled to Rs.15,000/-, going by Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` 9.However, coming to the arguments of the Insurance Company, I find force with it also ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` because, after the Tribunal considered the grant of compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency”, no amounts for “Loss of Love and Affection” could have been granted; as also under the head “Pain and Suffering”. ``` ``` Additionally, the amount of funeral expenses should have been limited to Rs.15,000/- as ``` ``` standardized inPranay Sethi(supra). ``` ``` Consequently, this appeal is allowed with ``` ``` the following directions: ``` ``` a)The compensation under the head “Funeral ``` ``` Expenses” is reduced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.25,000/-. ``` ``` b)The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Estate” is granted for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. ``` ``` c)The compensation under the head “Pain ``` ``` and Suffering” is deleted. ``` ``` d)Thecompensationfor“Lossof ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Dependency” is enhanced to Rs.13,60,800/-, from Rs.9,72,000/- now granted. ``` ``` e)The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Love and Affection” is deleted. ``` ``` f)Thecompensationfor“Lossof ``` ``` Consortium” is granted to an extent of Rs.80,000/- to the appellants. ``` ``` g)The compensation granted by the Tribunal ``` ``` and its holdings on all other heads are confirmed. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellants would be ``` ``` entitled to recover the compensation, as ``` ``` enhanced by this Court, from the 3rd respondent ``` ``` – Insurance Company, along with interest at the ``` ``` rate of 9% per annum, as fixed by the Tribunal, ``` ``` from the date of filing of claim, until it is realised. ``` ``` However, while computing the interest, the ``` ``` MACA NO. 1579 OF 2021 ``` **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` period of 794 days, being the delay caused by the appellants in filing this appeal, shall be excluded. ``` ``` The appellants will also be entitled to proportionate costs, on the enhanced amounts, as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` SAS ```