MANI A. and others v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GIC

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## `MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.09.2016 IN OP(MV)NO.1623/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM] ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1MANI.A, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 57 YEARS, KAVALATTU THEKKETHIL, PRAYAR SOUTH, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., CLAPPANA, KOLLAM. ``` - `2 FATHIMA. S, W/O. MANI. A, AGED 47 YEARS, KAVALATTU THEKKETHIL, PRAYAR SOUTH, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., CLAPPANA, KOLLAM.` - `3 MOHAMMED ANAS, S/O. MANI. A., AGED 27 YEARS, KAVALATTU THEKKETHIL, PRAYAR SOUTH, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., CLAPPANA, KOLLAM.` ``` 4FASILA, D/O. MANI. A., AGED 16 YEARS, KAVALATTU THEKKETHIL, PRAYAR SOUTH, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., CLAPPANA, KOLLAM (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT FATHER) ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.RENY ANTO ``` ## `RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:` ``` THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM GIC, SUNDARAM TOWER 46, WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` Late Mohammed Niaz was riding a motorcycle on 23.06.2014, when the offending car, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, and he was consequently thrown onto the road, suffering grave injuries. He unfortunately succumbed to the same after a while; thereupon, his parents and brothers filed OP(MV)No.1623/2014 before the ``` ``` Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam ``` ``` (‘Tribunal’, for short), seeking compensation of ``` ``` an amount of Rs.22 lakhs; but which has been awarded only to a sum of Rs.10,34,000/-. They assail the compensation as being inadequate. ``` ``` 2.Sri.Siju Kamalasanan – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the primary reason why the compensation has been fixed low by the Tribunal is because it has adopted the notional income of the deceased to be a mere Rs.6,000/-, though they have claimed Rs.10,000/- ``` ## `MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017` ``` -3- ``` ``` per month, because he was engaged as a ``` ``` businessman. He argued that the Tribunal erred ``` ``` in not awarding compensation under the heads “Loss of Consortium” and “Loss of Estate” and thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed in granting the same also. ``` ``` 3.In response, Sri.P.Jacob Mathew – ``` ``` learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that, since the accident happened in the year 2014 and no evidence has ``` ``` been led by the appellants to prove the income ``` ``` of the deceased, the Tribunal was without error in having adopted Rs.6,000/-; adding that the ``` ``` compensation awarded under the head “Funeral ``` ``` Expenses” is, in fact, much more than what is ``` ``` authorized.Sri.P.JacobMathewconcluded saying that, in fact, the Tribunal has granted more than what was permissible to the ``` ``` appellants, because no amounts under the heads ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of Love and Affection” could have been offered in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ``` ``` United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder ``` ``` Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780]. ``` ``` 4.I have considered the afore rival ``` ``` submissions on the touchstone of the evidence on ``` ``` record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, with the express consent that it can be ``` ``` acted upon by this Court without dispute. ``` ``` 5.I will first deal with the adequacy of ``` ``` the notional income adopted by the Tribunal. As ``` ``` seen above, the appellants averred that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month; and ``` ``` that he was working as a businessman. However, ``` ``` no evidence has been led by them, either ``` ``` documentary or oral, to establish that he was working as a businessman or to prove the said ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` income. ``` ``` 6.Obviously, the Tribunal could only have fixed the notional income of the deceased; but, while doing so, it ought to have gone by the ``` ``` postulations in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal ``` ``` Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) ``` ``` 13 SCC 236]. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared that, even in the case of a person who is working as a ‘Coolie’, or with an unascertainable income, in the year 2014 – when the accident occurred – the minimum ``` ``` figure to be reckoned is Rs.9,500/- per month. Future prospects of 40% requires to be added to this, as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[2017 (4) KLT 662)], since the ``` ``` deceased was only 21 years at the time of the accident.The notional income being so ``` ``` arrived, the compensation for “Dependency” would require to be enhanced appropriately. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` ``` -6- ``` ``` 7.That said, I notice that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head ``` ``` “Funeral Expenses” and Rs.3,24,000/- under a ``` ``` separate head of “Future Prospects”. As far as ``` ``` the former head is concerned, it will have to be ``` ``` revised to Rs.15,000/- as perPranay Sethi (supra), and as far as the latter is concerned, in view of the grant of “Dependency” as above, it will require to be deleted. ``` ``` 8.Quoad Hoc the compensation granted by ``` ``` the Tribunal under the heads “Loss of Love and ``` ``` Affection” and “Pain and Suffering”, no amounts ``` ``` could have been granted, when “Loss of ``` ``` Dependency” is adequately compensated as per ``` ## `Satinder Kaur (supra).` ``` 9.Finally, there is great force in the ``` ``` submissions of Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, that the learned Tribunal has erred in denying ``` ``` compensation for “Loss of Consortium” and “Loss ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` ``` -7- ``` ``` of Estate”, sincePranay Sethi(supra) authorizes a minimum of Rs.80,000/- under the former head – with the parents alone being eligible to it; and Rs.15,000/- under the latter head. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is ``` ``` partly allowed in the following manner: ``` ``` (a) The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Dependency” is revised to Rs.14,36,400/- (Rupees ``` ``` fourteen lakhs thirty six thousand four hundred only), reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.9,500/-, with 40% future ``` ``` prospects added to it and one-half of it ``` ``` deducted towards his personal expenses, since he ``` ``` was a bachelor at the time of the accident, as ``` ``` perSarla Verma & Others v.Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [2010 (2) KLT 802]. ``` ``` (b)The compensation under the head ``` ``` “Funeral Expenses” is revised to Rs.15,000/- ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` (Rupees fifteen thousand only), from Rs.25,000/- ``` ``` as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` - `(c) The compensation under the head “Loss of` ``` Love and Affection” is deleted. ``` - `(d) The compensation awarded under the head` ``` “Future prospects” is deleted. ``` - `(e) The compensation under the head “Pain` ``` and Suffering” is deleted. ``` - `(f) A further amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees` ``` eighty thousand only), is awarded under the head ``` ``` compensation for “Loss of Consortium” in favour ``` ``` of appellants 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` - `(g) A further amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees` ``` fifteen thousand only) is awarded towards “Loss ``` ``` of Estate” as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` - `(h) In all other heads, the compensation` ``` granted by the Tribunal will remain intact. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellants will be at full ``` ``` MACA NO. 1783 OF 2017 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` liberty to recover the compensation, as modified ``` ``` by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along ``` ``` with interest at the rate of 9%, as awarded by ``` ``` the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is ``` ``` recovered.They will also be entitled to ``` ``` proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` calculating the interest as afore, a period of ``` ``` 163 days - being the delay in filing this Appeal ``` ``` – shall stand excluded. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed ``` ``` above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of ``` ``` two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` akv ``` ## `JUDGE`