Legal heirs of Jomon Jose v. Shajan Chacko and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944 MACA NO. 2819 OF 2008** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2007 IN OPMV 573/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** |1|MR.JOSE JACOB, PANTHIRUVELIL HOUSE,| |---|---| ||KUNNAMBHAGOM, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM.| |2|THEYAMMA JOSE DO......DO..........| |3|RANI JOSE DO......DO.....| |4|KURIYACHAN JOSE DO....DO...| ||BY ADV SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN| ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |1|SRI.SHAJAN CHACKO, CHERUVIL HOUSE,| |---|---| ||KAIPUZHA PALLITHAZHAM, KAIPUZHA,, NEENDOOR,| ||KOTTAYAM.| |2|MATHAI ULAHANNAN KUMILLIL HOUSE| ||PUTHUVELI P.O., MONIPALLY, KOTTAYAM.| |3|THE UNITED INDIA INSURNACE CO. LTD.| ||KOTTAYAM.| ||BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR| THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 2819/2008 2 C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------MACA No.2819 of 2008 ------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of September, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T 1. The legal heirs of one Jomon Jose, who succumbed to the injuries caused to him in an accident which occurred on 30.12.2003, are the appellants. They were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(M.V.)No.573/2004. The appellants seek enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. Heard Sri.T.K.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Raji T.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased at the time of accident was 22 years old, as per Ext.A8 SSLC certificate. He was a Development Officer in a Private Company, besides doing his business in rubber. He claimed Rs.3,300/- per month, the statutory upper limit in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal reckoned only Rs.2500/-. The MACA 2819/2008 3 learned counsel seeks enhancement in this regard. 4. Having regard to the job of Development Officer in a Private Company, coupled with the business in rubber, this Court is of the view that the monthly income can be reckoned at Rs.3,300/- . Even the notional income stipulated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] is higher than the said amount. Therefore, the monthly income is reckoned as Rs.3,300/-. 5. Learned counsel for the third respondent/ Insurance Company submitted that even while following the Second Schedule, the multiplier method, in preference to the amount quantified in the last column of the Second Schedule is to be adopted. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma v. Narayana Reddy [2014 (1) KLT 738 (SC)] to contend that the Second Schedule is full of mistakes, wherefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come down with a new formula in paragraph no.56 of the judgment, as per which, in the case of death of a person, who is aged MACA 2819/2008 4 more than five years, a fixed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- or the amount determined in terms of the Second Schedule, whichever is higher, is to be adopted. The amount to be determined in terms of the Second Schedule, according to the learned counsel, is the one arrived at by applying the multiplier method. In the instant case, the deceased was between the age of 20 years and 25 years, wherefore, the correct multiplier to be applied is 17. If the said method is adopted, the amount arrived at will be less than the amount quantified in the last column for the corresponding age group, that is to say, Rs.7,20,000/-. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma's case only directed to follow the Second Schedule or to grant a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, whichever is higher. Following Second Schedule does not mean that the multiplier method itself should be followed; the amount quantified in the last column is also very much part and parcel of the Second Schedule. Therefore, adopting the amount MACA 2819/2008 5 quantified in the Second Schedule will be sufficient compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma's case. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is inclined to endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. 7. It is true that multiplier is provided in the Second schedule for persons belonging to the different age groups. It is equally important that quantified amounts has been stipulated in the last column of the Second Schedule. The purpose of a claim under Section 163A is to avoid disputed contentions and to arrive at a figure without much controversy. If that proposition is borne in mind, the quantification made in the last column of the Second Schedule appears to be justified. True that the learned counsel for the third respondent invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [1996(2) KLT 218 (SC)] , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found in paragraph no.18 that the amounts quantified are not correct, by citing examples. Here, it is to be noted immediately that even the multiplier method is also found fault MACA 2819/2008 6 with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same paragraph. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the amounts awarded in that case, pointing out that although the multiplier applied is excessive, the multiplicand was law. This court is not in a position to cull out from the said judgment a proposition that, while following the Second Schedule, the multiplier method should invariably be reckoned. Inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma's case only directed to follow the Second Schedule, this Court is left with two options; one to follow the multiplier method and the other to adopt the amounts quantified in the Second Schedule. Since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to afford reliefs to victims of road accidents, this Court is only inclined to adopt that method, which gives better benefits to the claimants, which obviously is the amount quantified in the last column of the Second Schedule. This Court also takes cue from the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma's case to take the amount, whichever is higher, which also indicates that the better benefit out of the options available, should inure to the claimants. MACA 2819/2008 7 8. Learned counsel for the third respondent also pointed out that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Majeed v. Mohammed Shafeeque [2016 (1) KLT SN 113 (C.No.123)] , wherein the Division Bench has followed the multiplier method in preference to the amount quantified. This Court is not in a position to cull out any dictum from the said judgment, which mandates that the multiplier method should be followed, in preference to the amount quantified in the last column of the Second Schedule. The cited judgment merely takes note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma's case and awarded the amount stipulated in Puttamma's case, the same being higher than the amount worked out in terms of the Second Schedule. This would not stand to vouch for the legal position that the multiplier method should be followed invariably. 9. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to take Rs.7,20,000/- as the amount of compensation payable to the claimants corresponding to the age group, going by the Second Schedule, of course with a deduction of 1/3[rd] of the same towards personal expenses. Here, this Court notices that the reduction MACA 2819/2008 8 of 50% made by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Insofar as the claim under Section 163A is concerned, the Second Schedule has been held to be a complete code, wherein deduction in terms of one-half of the compensation amount is not contemplated, irrespective of the fact that whether the deceased was bachelor or otherwise. 10. Other amounts given towards the funeral expenses and loss of estate, as also, towards the medical bills are perfectly in order and this Court approves the amounts under that heads granted by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, this M.A.C.A is allowed and the amount payable to the claimants is reworked as indicated in the tabular column shown hereinbelow: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of claim|Amount<br>awarded<br>by<br>the<br>Tribunal(Rs)|Total <br>amount<br>after<br>enhancement in<br>appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Compensation towards<br>loss of dependency|255000|480000<br>(720000x2/3)| |2|Medical Bills|5675|5675| |3|Funeral Expenses|2000|2000| |4|Loss of estate|2500|2500| ||Total|265175|490175| ||Amount enhanced =Rs.2,25,000/-(490175 - 265175)||| MACA 2819/2008 9 11. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest on enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Mrcs/jg