M.A.C.A.3013/2018 (Ligi Anto Joseph & Others vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited)

M.A.C.A.3013/2018 1 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943_ _MACA NO. 3013 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1099/2012 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES &MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR, THRISSUR_ ## _APPELLANT/S:_ _THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI 18._ _BY ADVS. MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENT/S:_ _1 LIGI ANTO JOSEPH, W/O.LATE P.L.JOSEPH, PADIKKALA HOUSE, SMART NAGAR, ARIMBUR P.O,_ M.A.C.A.3013/2018 2 _THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 620._ _2 JERIN JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, PADIKKALA HOSUE, SMART NAGAR, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 620._ _3 JESMI JOSEPH, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.L.JOSEPH, PADIKKALA HOUSE, SMART NAGAR, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 620._ _BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.3013/2018 3 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943_ _CO NO. 3 OF 2019_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 3013/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF_ _KERALA_ ## _PETITIONER/S:_ _1 LIGI ANTO JOSEPH, W/O.LATE P.L JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADIKKALA HOUSE, SMART NAGAR, ARIMBUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 620. 2 JERIN JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, PADIKKALA HOSUE, SMART NAGAR, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 620. 3 JESMI JOSEPH, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.L.JOSEPH, PADIKKALA HOUSE, SMART NAGAR, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 620._ _BY ADVS. T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD_ ## _RESPONDENT/S:_ _THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI 18._ _BY ADV P.JACOB MATHEW_ _THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.3013/2018 4 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is submitted by the appellant/3[rd] respondent insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 seeking compensation for death of one Joseph due to injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 30.03.2012. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident and was working as an LIC agent. The monthly income of the deceased was claimed as Rs.10,000/-. The petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 sought for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant insurance company contested the matter by filing a written statement. However, the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle was admitted. 2. Evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A13 from the side of the appellant. The insurance policy was marked as Ext.B1. After the trial, the Tribunal, passed an award allowing a M.A.C.A.3013/2018 5 total compensation of Rs.13,37,600/-. As it was found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1[st] respondent driver of the vehicle, being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3[rd] respondent was directed to deposit the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the insurance company filed this appeal. The respondents/petitioners filed cross objection No.3/19 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned Senior counsel mainly attacks the quantum of compensation on the ground that, while computing the compensation for loss of dependency, the Tribunal added 40% of the monthly income towards future prospects. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged 49 at the time of accident, the proper addition should have been 25%. Similarly, he further points out that the deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased was ¼[th , ] whereas the same should have been[1] /3th[, as the number of dependents is only three.] M.A.C.A.3013/2018 6 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is only Rs.7,000/-, whereas the claim was for Rs.10,000/-. In support of his contentions, he would further point out that as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** and **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , the monthly income of Rs.7,000/- is on lower side and it requires reconsideration. 4. When the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant is considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** it can be seen that the deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses and the addition made towards future prospects are not in tune with the principles set out therein. As pointed out by the learned Senior counsel, the addition should M.A.C.A.3013/2018 7 have been done at the rate of 25% and the deduction should have been[1] /3 instead of ¼. The said contentions are to be accepted. Next question that arises is with regard to the monthly income. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Syed Sadiq** (supra) and **Ramachandrappa** (supra), it also requires reconsideration. On the basis of the said judgments, this Court is consistently fixing the basic notional monthly income as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004. In respect of the accidents occurred during subsequent years, an addition at the rate of Rs.500/- each is being made from the said notional income, so as to arrive at the proper notional monthly income in tune with the date of the accident. When such method of computation is adopted in this case, the monthly income of the deceased is to be fixed as Rs.8,500/-, as the accident occurred in the year 2012. When the compensation under this head is re-computed on the basis of the revised criteria as mentioned above, it would come to Rs.11,05,000/- [8500+(25%) x 12 x 13 x 2/3]. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.11,46,600/- and therefore, the excess amount is Rs.41,600/-, which is to be M.A.C.A.3013/2018 8 deducted. 6. The Senior counsel further points out that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and according to him no such amount should have been granted. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **United India Insurance Co** **Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and other** **[2020 (3) KHC 760],** respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for parental consortium at the rate of 40,000/- each. However, no such amount was granted. When considering the principles in **Satwinder Kaur** (supra), it can be seen that, besides spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/- to the wife, the children are entitled for parental consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for compensation for parental consortium at the rate of Rs 40,000/- each. In **Satwinder Kaur** (supra), it was also held that, when compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no amount needs to be M.A.C.A.3013/2018 9 granted for loss of love and affection. In this case, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted under that head. Since I have already granted compensation for consortium to all the respondents as prescribed in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) and **Satwinder Kaur** (supra), the award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection is not proper and hence it is set aside. The amount of compensation under the other heads are in tune with the settled legal principles and no interference is warranted. 7. In the light of the above, total amount receivable by the appellant is fixed as Rs.12,76,000/- (13,37,600-1,00,00040,000+80,000). The insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum with 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** DG/26.7.21