MACA No. 514 of 2010 (Appellants) vs OP(MV) 1281/2000 (Respondents), Irinjalakuda

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY,THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 514 OF 2010`** ## **`OPMV 1281/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,`** ## **`IRINJALAKUDA`** ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - `1 SHYLAJA P., KAMALADHARAN, POOKODE, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O,, THRISSUR.` - `2 SHYAMLAL S/O. PUTHENVEETIL SHYLAJA AGED 7, KAMALADHARAN, POOKODE,, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O, THRISSUR., REP. BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER SHYLAJA` - `3 SALIMA D/O. PUTHENVEETIL SHYLAJA AGED 6, POOKODE,, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O, THRISSUR., REP. BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER SHYLAJA` - `4 NANIKUTTIAMMA (DIED) W/O. LATE PUTHENVETTIL RAMAN NAIR,, POOKODE,, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O, THRISSUR.` - `ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 5 TO 7 ARE IMPLEADED.` - `ADDL.5 P. BALACHANDRAN, S/O RAMAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, VATTANATHARA P. O., AMBALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680302.` - `ADDL.6 P. N. RADHAKRISHNAN MENON, S/O RAMAN NAIR, AGED 69 YEARS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PIDIKKAPARAMBU, MUPILYAM P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680312.` - `ADDL.7 SUMATHI P. N., D/O RAMAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, PALAKKATH HOUSE, ACHUTHAN NAIR MOOLA, MADAYIKONAM P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 712.` ``` (ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 5 TO 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 4TH APPELLANT, AS PER ORDER DATED 12.07.2023 IN IA NO. 1/2023 IN MACA 514/2010 ). ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR ``` M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 2 : ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 MANOJ GEORGE, S/O. THATTIL UMBAVU GEORGE, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR.` - `2 AJITH GEORGE, S/O. THATTIL UMBAVU GEORGE,, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR.` - `3 THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH.` - `4 KESAVAN NAIR (DIED) S/O. PALLIPURATH GOVINDAN NAIR, POOKODE,VATTANATHARA, ALAGAPPANAGAR, THRISSUR.` ``` THE STATUS OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IS UPDATED AS "DIED" AS PER ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 IN MACA-514/2010. ``` - `5 K.V. GANGADHARAN, KALIYAN HOUSE VATTANATHARA, ALAGAPPANGARA, THRISSUR.` - `6 THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, THRISSUR BRANCH. BY ADV P.MURALEEDHARAN-R3` ``` SMT. K.S. SANTHI-R6 ``` ## **`THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP`** ``` FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 3 : ## JUDGMENT The claim petition was submitted by the appellants herein seeking compensation for the death of one Kamaladharan, who died due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 24.11.1999. The accident occurred when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8D-4924, it collided with another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8F-4364. The motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling was owned by the 1[st] respondent, ridden by the 2[nd] respondent, and insured by the 3[rd] respondent. The motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8F-4364, was owned by the 4[th] respondent, ridden by the 5[th] respondent, and was insured with the 6[th] respondent. 2. According to the appellant, the deceased was working as a mason aged 30 years and the monthly income claimed was Rs.4,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The insurance companies contested the claim petitions even though they admitted the insurance coverage over M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 4 : the respective vehicles. They also disputed the quantum of compensation as well as negligence. The said claim petition was tried along with OP(MV) No.190/2000, which arose from the very same accident. 3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A11 from the side of the claimants and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the respondents. 4. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing reg No KL-8F-4364 and being the insurer, the 6[th] respondent herein was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,76,500/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 6[th] respondent, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till 20.06.2006 and thereafter from 04.08.2009 till realisation and also with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation by the appellants. 5. Heard Sri. K.P. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri .P. Muralidharan, the learned M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 5 : counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company and Smt. K.S. Santhi, the learned counsel, appearing for the 6[th] respondent insurance company. 6. The only dispute relates to the quantum of compensation. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of dependency was grossly inadequate. On perusal of the records, I find some force in the said contentions. It is seen that, even though a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- was claimed, the tribunal took the same as Rs.1,800/-, which appears to be on the lower side. Moreover, no addition towards future prospects was also made. As far as the monthly income is concerned, as the accident occurred in the year 1999, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.3,000/- which would be in tune with the standards prevailing at the relevant time. Since it has come out in evidence that he was a person aged about 35, an addition of 40% of the monthly income was made towards future prospects. With regard to the deduction made towards personal expenses, the same has to be ¼, since he left behind four dependents, i.e., his wife, two children and his M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 6 : mother. 7. While reassessing the compensation with the aboverevised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.6,04,800/- [(3000 +40%) x 12 x 16 x3/4]. The amount already awarded by the tribunal is Rs.1,44,800/-; thus, the additional amount would come to Rs.4,60,000/-. When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that the tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas the actual amount receivable under this head would come to Rs.15,000/- as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi 2017(4) KLT 662. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded under the said head. Similarly, no amount is seen granted towards loss of estate and therefore, Rs.15,000/is awarded. The other head is the loss of consortium. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of love and affection. As per the observations made in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780] , the petitioners, who were wife, two children and the mother of the deceased, are entitled to M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 7 : compensation for loss of consortium, at the rate of Rs.40,000/each. As regards the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection, it is to be noted that, in the light of the observations in Satinder Kaur, the same cannot be granted, as it was held in the said decision that when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, no separate amount needs to be granted for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the said amount can be adjusted towards the amount awarded by this Court towards the loss of consortium. Thus, the additional amount under the head of loss of consortium is determined as Rs.1,40,000. Thus, the total additional compensation receivable by the appellant as compensation would come to Rs.6,27,000/-(460000 + 12000 + 15000 + 140000) In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV) No.1281/2000 is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.6,27,000/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty-seven thousand only) and the 6[th] respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the same amount along with interest at the M.A.C.A. No.514/2010 : 8 : rate as ordered by the tribunal from the date of petition till 20.06.2006 and thereafter from 04.08.2009 till realization (interest calculation as per the award) with proportionate costs. The said amount shall be deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ncd/