MACA NO. 926 OF 2014

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 21 [ ST ] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 926 OF 2014`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 07.05.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.860 OF 2012 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1 NIMJU M., AGED 22 YEARS, W/O. LATE SATHYAN, VASU BHAVAN, MATTUPURATH, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. ``` ## **`2 PRASANNA,`** ``` AGED 52 YEARS, ``` ``` W/O. ASOKAN, VAZHAYUR, POST AZHINHILAM, MALAPPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ## **`1 T.P.VEERAN,`** ``` S/O. MUHAMMED, THALEKKARA PANDAYIL HOUSE, UNNIYATHIPARAMBA, VALIYAPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673637. ``` ## **`2 ASHRAF,`** ``` S/O. BEERAN, VALAYAMKOTTIL HOUSE, PULPATTA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676126. ``` MACA 926 of 2014 2 - **`3 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., M SONS ARCADE, 4TH FLOOR, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.`** ``` R3 BY ADV.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` R3 BY ADV.P.JACOB MATHEW, STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 926 of 2014 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP(MV)No.860 of 2012 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. Sri.Sathyan, the husband of the 1st appellant and son of the 2nd appellant, met with a road traffic accident on 25.02.2012, at 9.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through Bypass road near Bhavana bus stop. He was knocked down by KL-10/AH-5343 lorry, driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained serious injuries and died on the same day, due to the gravity of the injuries suffered by him. He was a 28 year old coolie, earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.6,37,000/-, and hence this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle, 2nd respondent was its driver and the 3rd respondent was its Insurer. Respondents 1 and 2 remained _ex parte_ . The MACA 926 of 2014 4 - 3rd respondent-Insurer entered appearance through counsel and admitted the Policy. 4. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that though the deceased was a coolie earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/-, the Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.4,500/-. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , to contend that in the year 2012, the notional . income of a coolie might have been fixed @ Rs.8,500/Relying on that decision, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.8,500/- per month. Moreover, since he was aged below 40, he was eligible to get 40% addition towards future MACA 926 of 2014 5 prospects. If so, his monthly income could have been fixed as Rs.11,900/- (8,500 + 40%). Since he was having two dependents ⅓ had to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the balance would come to Rs.7,933/-. The multiplier applicable is 17 as he was aged only 28. So, compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.16,18,332/(7,933x12x17). The Tribunal already awarded Rs.6,12,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. After deducting that amount, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.10,06,332/- as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 7. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.8,000/-. As per the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So, they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.7,000/under the head ‘funeral expenses’. 8. Towards loss of consortium, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Relying on **Pranay Sethi’s case** cited _supra_ , MACA 926 of 2014 6 they are eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each, amounting to Rs.80,000/- in total. After deducting Rs.10,000/- already awarded, they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.70,000/-. 9. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. Based on **Pranay Sethi’s case** cited _supra_ , they are eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So, they are entitled to receive the balance Rs.10,000/- as enhancement under the head ‘loss of estate’. 10. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and hence it needs no modification. |Head of claim|Amount<br>awarded by<br>the Tribunal|Amount<br>awarded in<br>appeal|Difference to be<br>drawn as<br>enhanced<br>compensation| |---|---|---|---| |Loss of<br>dependency|Rs.6,12,000/-|Rs.16,18,332/-|Rs.10,06,332/-| |Funeral expenses|Rs.8,000/-|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.7,000/-| |Loss of<br>consortium|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.80,000/-|Rs.70,000/-| |Loss of estate|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.10,000/-| |Total|||Rs.**10,93,332**/-| MACA 926 of 2014 7 11. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.10,93,332/-(10,06,332 + 7,000 + 70,000 + 10,000) as enhanced compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 1st appellant, who was the wife of the deceased, is remarried. Even then, she is eligible to get compensation on the death of her husband. Learned Tribunal apportioned the compensation between the claimants in the ratio 2:4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressed no objection in retaining that ratio with respect to the enhanced compensation also. 13. Hence, the 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,93,332/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two only) with 8% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 76 days of delay in filing the appeal) before the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, with in a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to appellants 1 and 2 in the MACA 926 of 2014 8 ratio 2:4, after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit funds etc. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/-