MACA.No.536/2012 & MACA.No.1325/2011, Nadeera Beevi v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollam; National Insurance Company Ltd v. Nadeera Beevi

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.536 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 573/2005 DATED 28-02-2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT:** **NADEERA BEEVI D/O.FATHIMA, KALLUVILA VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE** **CO.LTD.** **KOLLAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1325/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.1325 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 573/2005 DATED 28-02-2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT:** **NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KOLLAM NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER,, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE,, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT:** **NADEERA BEEVI D/O.FATHIMA, KALLUVILA VEEDU,, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O.,, VIA. KOLLAM-691004.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.536/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- MACA.536/2012 & MACA.1325/2011 ------------------------------- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 15th day of March 2021 These two appeals are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two appeals by a common judgment. 2. The appellant in MACA No.1325/2011 is the 3[rd] respondent in O.P(MV)No.573/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The appellant in MACA No.536/2012 is the petitioner in the above claim petition. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the tribunal). 3. The short facts are like this:- On 24.03.2003 at about 9.15 am while the deceased was driving a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL01/4412 through Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram NH 47 road from west to east direction keeping the left side of **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **4** the said road, and when he reached near Thattamala School a student abruptly crossed the road and as such the deceased while trying to avoid a major accident, turned the vehicle to left side and as such the vehicle skid on the road in which the deceased fell down and immediately another motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2H 2148 ridden by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the same direction run over the head of the deceased and as such he had sustained very serious injuries to his head and he succumbed to those injuries. Respondents 1 to 3 are the registered owner, driver and insurer of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2H 2148. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte to the proceedings before the Tribunal. 4. To substantiate the case Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of respondents. Exts.X1 and X1 **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **5** (a) are the case dairy. 5. After going through the documents and pleadings the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,12,064/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. Aggrieved by the fixation of liability on the 3[rd] respondent, the insurance company filed MACA No.1325/2011. The petitioner/claimant filed MACA No.536/2012 challenging the quantum of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 7. The counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the Tribunal has not considered the same properly. According to the counsel, the Tribunal without properly appreciating the available documents concluded that the 2[nd] respondent is responsible for the accident. I cannot agree with the counsel for the **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **6** appellant. Ext.A5 is the final report submitted by the police against the 2[nd] respondent. The police after investigation found that the 2[nd] respondent was rash and negligent which resulted in the accident. Moreover, the Tribunal after considering all the materials in detail decided that the 2[nd] respondent is rash and negligent. The relevant portion of the award is extracted hereunder:- “7.Issue No.1:- The accident in this case occurred within the jurisdiction of Kollam Traffic Police Station. Subsequent to the accident, Crime No. 114/2003 was registered and the police ultimately filled Ext. A5 (Photo copy) final report for the offence U/s 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC against the 2[nd] respondent. Ext. A1(photo copy) is the FIR, Ext.A2 (photo copy) is the scene mahazar, Ext.A3 (photo copy) is the vehicle mahazar and Ext.A4 (photo copy) is the AMVI report. The first and foremost contention raised by the 3[rd] respondent is that the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-02/H 2148 allegedly driven by the 2[nd] respondent not involved in the accident and the real vehicle involved in the accident is motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL -01/4412 which was ridden by the deceased himself which happened to hit against a girl **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **7** by name Minu while she was abruptly crossing the road and as such the rider of the motor cycle as well as she fell down and sustained injuries and during the course of treatment the rider of the motor cycle succumbed to those injuries. To substantiate the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-2/H 2148 involved in the accident, petitioner was examined as PW1. She would swear before Court in tune with the allegations in the petition. Nothing was brought out in her cross examination to discredit the witness. In the statement of one witness Sooraj Bhadran it is stated that............... ഒരരാള്‍ ഒരു മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിളക്കില്‍ വരുമമരാള്‍ ഓമടരാ സരാനക്കിനന് മുന്‍വശശം മറരാ ഡക്കിനന വടക്കുവശത്തു നവചന് മറരാഡന് മകരാസൈന് നചെയ്തുനവന്നു ഒരു നപെണ്‍കുടക്കിയുനട മദേഹതന് തടക്കി നപെണ്‍കുടക്കിയുശം മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിള്‍ ഓടക്കിചക്കിരുന്നയരാളശം നതറക്കിച മറരാഡക്കില്‍ വവീണ. ഈ സൈമയശം നകരാടക്കിയശം ഭരാഗതന് നക്കിന്നുശം അതക്കിമവഗതയക്കില്‍ വന്ന ഒരു മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിള്‍ നപെണ്‍കുടക്കിനയ തടക്കി മറരാഡക്കിനന മദദ്ധ്യഭരാഗമതകന് നതറക്കിച വവീണ മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിളകരാരനന കഴുതന് ഭരാഗതന് ശകക്കിയരായക്കി ഇടക്കിചമശഷശം അയരാളനട മദേഹതന് കൂടക്കി കയറക്കി ഇറങക്കി പെടക്കിഞരാമറരാടന് ഓടക്കിചമപെരായക്കി. ആ മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിളക്കിനന നമര്‍ KL 2H/2148 എന്നരാണന്. --------- Further down it is stated that......നപെണ്‍കുടക്കിനയ ഇടക്കിച മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിളക്കിനന നമര്‍ KL 01/4412 എന്നുമരാണന്.------- **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **8** FIR is seen registered U/c Motor occurrence. But in FIS given by Nasumudeen it is stated that................ അളക്കിയനന വക KL 01/4412-)ംശം നമര്‍ മമരാമടരാര്‍ സസൈകക്കിള്‍ നകരാലശം തക്കിരുവനന്തപുരശം NH മറരാനഡ പെടക്കിഞരാറു നക്കിന്നുശം കക്കിഴമകരാടന് ഓടക്കിച നപെരാകനവ തടരാമല സ്കൂളക്കിനു കക്കിഴക്കു എതക്കിയമപരാള്‍ മറരാഡ മകരാസു നചെയന് ഒരു നപെണ്‍കുടക്കിയുനട മദേഹതന് ഇടക്കിചമശഷശം അളക്കിയന്‍ നതറക്കിച മറരാഡക്കില്‍ വവീണ. അളക്കിയമനയുശം നപെണ്‍കുടക്കിമയയുശം ............ PW2 is Sooraj. He has deposed before Court in tune with his statement before police. Nothing was brought out in his cross examination to discredit the witness. He has categorically stated before Court that he is an auto driver and he has seen the incident and after the accident the deceased and the injured girl were taken to the hospital in his auto rickshaw. Ext. A10 is his driving licence and Ext. A11 is certificate of registration of his auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-2/L 4437. He has also stated that he came to know about the death of the deceased from newspaper. Ext. A8 is Mathurbhumi daily dated 27.03.2003 in which it is stated that........അന്‍സൈറക്കിനന സബൈകക്കിനന് മുന്നക്കില്‍ തടക്കിയ കുടക്കിനയ എടുക്കുന്നതക്കിനക്കിടയക്കില്‍ മനറരാരു വരാഹനശം അന്‍സൈറക്കിനന ഇടക്കിച നതറക്കിപക്കിച. ....................... Ext. X1 is the CD file. In that also there are so many newspaper cuttings. In Keral Kaumudi daily dated 27.03.2003 it is stated that...........സബൈകന് തടക്കിയ കുടക്കിനയ **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **9** എടുത്തു മരാറ്റുന്നതക്കിനക്കിനട മനറരാരു വരാഹനശം ഇടക് കയരായക്കിരുന്നു........ In Madhyamam daily dated 27.03.2003 it is stated that.......സബൈകക്കിനന് മുന്നക്കില്‍ ചെരാടക്കിയ കുടക്കിനയ രക്ഷനപടുതരാനുള ശ്രമതക്കിനക്കിടയക്കില്‍ മനറരാരു വരാഹനശം ഇടക്കിച നതറക്കിപക് കയരായക്കിരുന്നു. ഭരാരദ്ധ്യ നദേവീറ.” The Sub Inspector, Kollam Traffic police station who filed charge sheet against the accused was examined as PW3. He would swear before Court that while he took charge as Sub Inspector of Traffic police station, this case was under investigation and on examination of witnesses he convinced that the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-2H 2148 involved in the accident. He would further swear before Court that during the investigation of the case petitioner Nadeera filed a complaint to Dy.S.P. and based on that the witnesses were again examined and they came to the conclusion that the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 2H 2148 involved in the accident. It is true that the girl who sustained injury in the accident filed OP (MV) No. 829/2003 impleading the deceased as the 2[nd] respondent because it was the vehicle hit on her. The specific case of the petitioner and the investigating agency is that while he was trying to protect that girl, motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-2H 2148 which came from the opposite direction run over him and due to that injury he succumbed. So on a combined reading of documents, it is very clear that **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **10** the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-2H 2148 by the 2[nd] respondent. Issue found accordingly.” 8. I see no reason to interfere with the above findings by the Tribunal. 9. Then the counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the deceased was aged 32 years and the deduction towards personal expense ought to have been 50 **%** and the Tribunal deducted only 1/3rd. The learned counsel relied the judgment of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4) KLT 662].** There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. The deceased is admittedly aged 32 years. Wife of the deceased is the claimant. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards the personal expense of the deceased. The tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. If 50% is deducted, it will be Rs.2,000/-. If **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **11** that is the case, the compensation for dependency is to be recalculated in the following manner:- Rs.2,000 x 12 x 16 = Rs.3,84,000/- 10. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, only Rs.10,000/- is allowed towards loss of consortium. I think, the petitioner is entitled another Rs.30,000/- in the light of the decision in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others.[(2018) 18 SCC 130].** The appellant is entitled another amount of Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate. Towards funeral expense only Rs.5,000/- is allowed. The appellant is entitled another amount of Rs.10,000/- on that head also. Therefore, the modified compensation entitled by the petitioners/claimants is as follows:- |petitioners/claimants is as follows:-|| |---|---| |Head|Amount| |Transport to hospital and<br>funeral expense|Rs.15,000/-| |Compensation for pain and<br>suffering|Rs.15,000/-.| **MACA.No.536/2012&con.case** **12** |Compensation for<br>dependency|Rs.3,84,000/-| |---|---| |Compensation for loss of<br>consortium|Rs.40,000/-| |Loss of estate|Rs.15,000/-| |Total|Rs.4,69,000/-| 11. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled only an amount of Rs.4,69,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% instead of Rs.5,12,064/- with interest. Therefore, these appeals are disposed in the following manner:- i) MACA No.536/2012 and MACA No.1325/2011 are allowed in part. ii) The petitioner/claimant is entitled compensation of Rs.4,69,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ska ## **JUDGE**