MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018 (Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited vs Anjammal W/o Duraisamy, Vinotha W/o Murugesan, Melvina (Minor) through mother)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943** **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 985/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR, MALAPPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT:** ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KOZHIKODE NOW REPRESENTED BY THEIR ZONAL HEAD, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600002. BY ADVS. MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND SUPPLI. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:** 1 ANJAMMAL W/O.DURAISAMY, 102, NAGALLUR CHATHRAM, MADHAKOIL STREET, ELAIYUR P.O, KODAVASAL TALUK, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN-613705. 2 VINOTHA, W/O. MURUGESAN, 102, NAGALLUR CHATHRAM, MADHAKOIL STREET, ELAIYUR P.O, KODAVASAL TALUK, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN-613705. 3 MELVINA(MINOR), D/O. MURUGESAN, 102, NAGALLUR CHATHRAM, MADHAKOIL STREET, ELAIYUR P.O, KODAVASAL TALUK, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN-613705, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT. BY ADV SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant – insurance company was the 3[rd] respondent in O.P. (MV) No.985/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioners before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of Murugesan (deceased), the son of the 1[st] petitioner, the husband of the 2[nd] petitioner and the father of the 3[rd] petitioner. It was the case of the petitioners that on 30.8.2012, while the deceased was travelling pillion on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-08-Y 7794, the vehicle was hit by a tipper lorry bearing Reg. No.KL-57-C-7250 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **3** and negligent manner. The deceased was taken to the Almas Hospital, Kottakkal and, thereafter, referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode where he was treated as an inpatient till 6.9.2012, but he he lost his life on the said day. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was a coolie worker by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. Hence, the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, which they quantified at Rs.16,00,000/-. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte. 4. The 3[rd] respondent – Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance coverage. However, it was contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **4** However, at any rate, the rider of the motorcycle was guilty for contributory negligence. 5. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A9 in evidence. 6. The Tribunal, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the appellant/3rd respondent to pay the petitioners an amount of Rs. 14,11,600/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. 7. Aggrieved by the award, the 3[rd] respondent/insurance company is in appeal. 8 Heard Sri.Jacob Mathew, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/3rd respondent and Sri.C.H. Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners 9. The principal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are that the notional income of **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **5** the deceased fixed by the Tribunal was on the higher side, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded 40% towards future prospects and that Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection' was unsustainable in law. 10. Ext.A2 final report filed by the Kalpakanchery Police in Crime No.455/2012 substantiates that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent, who drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Undisputedly, the offending vehicle was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, it is the 3[rd] respondent who is liable to indemnify the liability of the 1[st] respondent on account of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. 11. The petitioners had contended that the deceased was a coolie worker by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **6** 12. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in year 2004 at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month. In light of the above ratio, I do not find any error in the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal. In fact, going by the law laid down in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), the notional income is on the lower side. 14. It is on the basis of the notional income fixed by the Tribunal that compensation was awarded under the other heads which are reaonsable and just. 15. The contention that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/was awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection' may be correct, in view of the law laid down in clause (viii) of paragraph 61 of **National Insurance Company** **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **7** **Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].** However, it is seen that the Tribunal had only awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium'. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in **Pranay Sethi (** supra), the respondents /petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- under the said head 'loss of consortium'. Hence, it is only a cosmetic correction that have to be made out in order to make the award in line with the law laid down in **Pranay Sethi (supra).** Overall the compensation is almost the same, with only a few thousand rupees more than what should be granted as laid down in **Pranay Sethi (** supra). 16. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award, I do not fiind any error or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **8** 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in **New Insurance Company Ltd v Kiran Singh & Ors** [2004 (AIR) SCW 4212] has deprecated the practice of insurance companies contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. It is also observed that if such instances are brought to the notice of the court, the court would be obgliged to dismiss such appeals with heavy cost apart from deprecating such parties. 18. It is to be born-in-mind that the accident occurred on 30.8.2012. It is nearly a decade since the respondents have lost their bread-winner. Athough this appeal was filed on 15.11.2018, the same has not been admitted by this Court till date. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there are no justifiable grounds warranting the admission of the appeal at this stage, which would only be a wastage of time and **MACA NO. 3608 OF 2018** **9** harassment to the respondents. Following the ratio in **Kiran Singh** (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold. ma/16.7.2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**