MACA No. 2005 of 2013 (P.C. Paraveena and others v. Ahamed Kabeer S/o Hamza and Liju K. S/o Sok... and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 2005 OF 2013`** ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 68/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS`** ## **`TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 P.C PARAVEENA AGED 30 YEARS W/O. LATE MUHAMMED ANAZ, RESIDING AT PADINJARE CHERU VEEDU, THANGA. IS ROAD, PARAPPIL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`2 P.C.MUJTHABAMINOR AGED 8 YEARS S/O. LATE MUHAMMED ANAZ, RESIDING AT PADINJARE CHERU VEEDU, THANGA IS ROAD, PARAPPIL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`3 KHALEELU RAJHMAN MINOR S/O. MUHAMMED ANAZ, RESIDING AT PADINJARE CHERU VEEDU, THANGA IS ROAD, PARAPPIL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`4 MIHVAN MINOR S/O. LATE MUHAMMED ANAZ, RESIDING AT PADINJARE CHERU VEEDU, THANGA IS ROAD, PARAPPIL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`5 AHAMMED KOYA DIED S/O. MOIDEEN KOYA, RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`6 M.SUBAITHA AGED 60 YEARS W/O. AHAMMEDKOYA, RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`7 MUHAMMED FASAL S/O. AHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`8 MUHAMMED SADIQUE S/O. AHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.`** ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 2 ``` - **`9 MUHAMMED RIYAL S/O. AHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`10 MUHAMMED AKBAR S/O. AHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. (SUPPL. 7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT BAITHUL FATHIMA, KEERTHI NAGAR, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, THEY ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 2593.12 AND 2594/12 DTD.30.6.12) BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 AHAMMED KABEER S/O. HAMZA, PARAKKAL HOUSE, COURT ROAD, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.`** - **`2 LIJU K. S/O. SOKAN, KANIYARAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., KOZHIKODE.`** ``` 3MS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. RAMEEZ ARCADE, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.R.BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN SRI.PRASANTH M.P ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The appellants were the petitioners in OP(MV) No. 68 of 2012 on the files of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claim petition was submitted by the appellants 1 to 6, seeking compensation for the death of one Muhammed Anaz, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 05/01/2011. The deceased was the husband of the 1[st] petitioner, the father of the petitioners 2 to 3 and the son of the petitioners 5 and 6. During the pendency of the claim petition, the 5[th ] petitioner passed away and his legal heirs were impleaded as supplementary petitioners 7 to 10. 2. The accident occurred when the deceased was knocked down by a motorcycle ridden by the 2[nd] respondent. 1[st] respondent was the registered owner of the said motorcycle and it was insured with the 3[rd ] respondent. The deceased was aged 41 years and working as a mechanic with a monthly income of Rs.6,350/-. The claim petition is submitted in such circumstances. ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 4 ``` 3. The 3[rd] respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they accepted the coverage of policy but they disputed the liability under various heads. They denied the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent and also challenged the quantum of compensation claimed. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts. A1 to A7 from the side of the appellants and no evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.7,61,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard Sri.T.G. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. K.P. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 5 ``` respondent, and Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 6. The only issue to be considered relates to the quantum of compensation. On going through the materials placed on record, I find that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the lower side. As far as the compensation for loss of dependency is concerned, for the purpose of assessing the same, the Tribunal accepted the monthly income as Rs.5,000/- which appears to be on the lower side. The specific claim in this regard was Rs.6,350/-. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011, the said amount cannot be treated as unreasonable. It is to be noted that in this regard, in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd**_ [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to take a monthly income of an employee as Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004 even without any evidence. Therefore, I find it proper to accept the monthly income in this case as Rs.6,350/which is in tune with the claim put forward by the appellants in this ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 6 ``` regard. The next aspect to be noticed is the future prospects. No addition was made by the Tribunal towards future prospects whereas, as per _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi**_ [(2017) 16 SCC 680], an addition of 25% is to be made for the persons coming within the age group of 40-50 years. As the deceased was 41 years old at the time of the accident, the addition to that extent is to be made. Since he left behind six dependents, the deduction to be made towards personal expenses should be 1/4th. Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the above criteria, the amount would come to Rs.10,00,125/- [(6350+25%)x12x14x3/4]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.6,30,000/- and thus the additional compensation comes to Rs.3,70,125/-. 7. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses was Rs.5,000/- and since the actual amount payable in the light of **Pranay Sethi (Supra)** , was Rs.15,000/-, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head. Similarly, the amount awarded towards loss of estate was only Rs.10,000/- and in the light ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 7 ``` of **Pranay Sethi (Supra)** , a further sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded. 8. The next aspect to be noted is the compensation for loss of consortium. In the light of _**United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and other**_ [ 2020 (3) KHC 760] and _**Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram**_ [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the petitioners 1 to 6 in the claim petition being the wife, children and the parents were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each thereby making a total amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. However the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. It is held in _**Sathindar Kaur**_ (supra), that when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, no separate compensation needs to be granted towards loss of love and affection. Therefore the amount already awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection could be adjusted against the compensation determined by this Court towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, additional compensation for the loss ``` MACA NO.2005 OF 2013 ``` ``` 8 ``` of consortium is determined as Rs.1,30,000/-. Thus the total additional compensation is fixed as Rs.5,15,125/- (3,70,125 + 5,000 + 10,000+1,30,000). In the result this appeal is allowed. The award dated 01/05/2013 passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV) No.68/2012 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.5,15,125/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Five only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and with the proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` sms