M.A.C.A. Nos. 16 of 2018 and 2340 of 2015 & 16/2018, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.2340 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.1067/2011 DATED 09-06-2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.1067/2011:** **BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 1ST FLOOR, MANGALAM TOWER, OPP. TOWN BUS STAND, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.LAL GEORGE** **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN OP(MV)NO.1067/2011:** **1 AMINA AGED 47 YEARS W/O. ABOOBACHER, ARIKATH HOUSE, KURUVA, PAZHAMALLUR P.O., PERINTHALMANA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506. 2 KUNHAYAMU AGED 51 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED, VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA POST, PERINTHALMANA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506.** **3 ABDUL ANEES, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. KUNHAYAMU, VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA POST, MAKKARAPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 324.** **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 2 - **4 ASKAR ALI AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O. KUNHAYAMMU, VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506.** - **5 ASMABI (MINOR),** - **REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AMINA, ARIKATH HOUSE, PAZHAMALLUR P.O., PERINATHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506.** - **6 FAUSENA** - **W/O. SHAJUDHEEN, KATTIKUNNUAN HOUSE, KONNAMUNDA, IDAVANNA P.O., CHALIYAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.** - **7 AMEER ALI T. AGED 25 YEARS** - **S/O. HAMZA, THODEKKATHIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 338.** **R1 TO R5 BY ADVS. SMT.M.MANJU SRI.R.SUDHISH R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.08.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.16/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.16 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.1067/2011 DATED 09-06-2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 AMINA** **AGED 53 YEARS,D/O. ABOOBACKER, ARIKATH HOUSE, KURUVA, PAZHAMALLUR POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676506.** **2 KUNHAYAMU AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA POST, MAKKARAPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679324.** - **3 ABDUL ANEES AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAYAMU, VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA POST, MAKKARAPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679324, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AMINA.** - **4 ASKAR ALI,** - **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAYAMU, VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA POST, MAKKARAPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679324.** - **5 ASMABI AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAYAMU, ARIKATH HOUSE, KURUVA, PAZHAMALLUR POST, PERINTHALMANNA,** **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 4 ## **MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676506.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 FAUSENA W/O. SHAJUDHEEN, KATTIKUNNAN HOUSE, KONNAMUNDA, IDIVANNA POST, CHALIYAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676505.** - **2 AMEER ALI.T. S/O. HAMZA, THODEKKATHIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679338.** - **3 BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR, MANGALAM TOWERS, OPPOSITE TOWN BUS STAND, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001.** - **R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.08.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.2340/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 5 ## **J U D G M E N T** M.A.C.A. No.16 of 2018 is by the claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and M.A.C.A. No.2340 of 2015 is by the insurer in the said proceedings. 2. One Anzon, aged 23 years died in a motor accident took place on 22.03.2011. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a casual labourer. His parents and siblings were the claimants in the proceedings. Among the siblings, two of them were younger to the deceased and one was elder to the deceased. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.14,20,812/- by way of compensation. According to the claimants, the compensation granted is grossly inadequate and according to the insurer, the compensation granted is excessive. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 6 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea as regards the income of the deceased, I am of the view that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq** v. **Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** , [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/and Rs.6,500/- in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case can be certainly reckoned at Rs.8,000/-, in the context of the accident took place in 2011. In **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 7 the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the deceased was a bachelor, one half of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged below 40, 40% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 23, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '18'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.12,09,600/-(Rs.8000x140/100x12x18x1/2). As the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.12,15,000/- towards compensation under that head, Rs.5,400/- granted by the Tribunal under that head is excessive. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering. As no amount has been granted by the Tribunal to the claimants under that head and as the death was after **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 8 almost 40 days of the accident, they are granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation under that head. 7. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and others** (2018 ACJ 2782) and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2011, I am of the view that the parents and the younger siblings of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/each, totalling to Rs.1,60,000/-. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of additional compensation. 8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 9. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.49,600/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeals are disposed of granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.49,600/- by way of **M.A.C.A No.2340/2015 & 16/2018** 9 additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. It is made clear that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the additional compensation granted for the period of delay in filing appeal, viz, 842 days, as ordered by this court. All interlocutory applications in the appeals are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** DK