Nabeesu and Others v. T. Narayanan and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Basheer
P. Q. Barkath Ali
Judgment Date: 2010-10-08
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the Tribunal’s award is modified to award an additional compensation of Rs. 3,49,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from the copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nabeesu
Razia
Asif
Rafsan
Rumais
Rincy

Respondents

T. Narayanan
Prajith P.V.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Grashious KuriaKose

Counsels for Respondents

• Mini Gangadharan
• Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil

Case Synopsis & Summary

Appellants are the mother, wife and four minor children of the deceased Majeed, who died following injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision involving jeep KL-13/E-6919 at Thalassery on 26 November 2000. The accident was found to be the fault of the jeep’s driver, and the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, awarded the claimants Rs. 2,20,500 as compensation with interest at 9% from the date of petition. The owner and the driver were absent before the Tribunal; the insurer admitted the policy. On appeal, the main issue was quantum since liability was not disputed. The Tribunal had fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 1,500, and after a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, Rs. 1,000 remained as monthly contribution, applying a multiplier of 15 to arrive at Rs. 1,80,000 for loss of dependency. The appellants contended that income was understated; they suggested Rs. 3,500 per month, which would yield a larger dependency figure. Relying on Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the High Court held that only 1/5 of the income should be deducted for personal expenses, producing Rs. 2,800 as monthly family contribution. With the same multiplier, dependency compensation became Rs. 5,04,000. The court also awarded Rs. 25,000 for love and affection and held the total enhanced compensation to be Rs. 3,49,000 above the Tribunal’s award, with 9% interest and costs. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in determining the value of loss of dependency by underestimating the deceased’s income and by applying an insufficient personal-expenses deduction; they urged enhancing the monthly earnings (to Rs. 3,500) and adopting a 1/5 deduction for personal expenses, with a multiplier of 15, and recognizing compensation for love and affection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that liability was not in dispute and supported the Tribunal’s determination; they did not contest negligence and submitted that the quantum should be maintained, with the insurer liable to pay the enhanced amount as dictated by the appellate court.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another	2009(6) SCC 121	Positive	The court relied on the Sarala Varma principle to justify deducting only 1/5 of the income for personal expenses, enabling higher dependency compensation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 413 of 2006() ---------------------OPMV.235/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... ## APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. NABEESU, M/O. LATE A.K. MAJEED, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHABINA MANZIL, UMMANCHIRA P.O. 2. RAZIA, W/O. LATE A.K. MAJEED, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHABINA MANZIL, UMMENCHIRA P.O. 3. ASIF, S/O. LATE A.K. MAJEED, AGED 20 YEARS, SHABINA MANZIL, UMMANCHIRA P.O. 4. RAFSAN, S/O. LATE A.K. MAJEED, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHE AND -DORAZIA. 5. RUMAIS, S/O. LATE A.K.MAJEED, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR), -DO- -DO- REP. BY MOTHER, RAZIA. 6. RINCY, D/O. LATE A.K. MAJEED, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR), -DO- -DO-, REP. BY MOTHER, RAZIA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. T. NARAYANAN, S/O. KUNHAMAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT SREE SYIAM HOUSE, KADACHIRA P.O., THALASSERY. (OWNER OF KL-13/E-6919 JEEP). MACA.NO.413/2006 2. PRAJITH P.V., S/O. P.K. VASU, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT ERIVATTYKANDY HOUSE, KOTTAYAMPOIL, THALASSERY. (DRIVER OF KL-13/E-6919, JEEP). 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, P.B. NO.97 JUBILEE SQUARE SHOPPING COMPLEX HOSPITAL ROAD, THALASSERY - ADV. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN FOR R2 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **M.A.C.A.No.413 OF 2006** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8[th] day of October, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Barkath Ali, J. Appellants are the claimants in OP(MV)235/2001 on the file of the Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. They are the mother, wife and four minor children of deceased Majeed who died in a motor accident. On November 26, 2000, while the deceased was walking along the side of the road at 5[th] mile, Thalassery, he was knocked down by a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL 13E 6919. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Alleging negligence against the driver of the jeep, the second respondent, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending jeep remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending jeep filed a written statement MACA.No.413/2006 2 admitting the policy of the jeep. 3. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,20,500/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,20,500/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: MACA.No.413/2006 3 |Pain and suffering|- Rs. 5,000/-| |---|---| |Transportation|- Rs. 5,000/-| |Damage to clothing|- Rs. 500/-| |Loss of dependency|- Rs.1,80,000/-| |Loss of consortium|- Rs. 15,000/-| |Pain and suffering|- Rs. 15,000/-| 7. The Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency. It is pointed out that no compensation was awarded towards loss of love and affection by the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- and after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was taken as his monthly contribution to his family and adopted a multiplier of 15 as the deceased was aged 42 at the time of the accident and awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- for the loss of dependency. According to the claimants, deceased was doing business and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,500/- . Claimants are his mother, wife and four minor children. In the light of the principles laid down in **Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another** ( 2009(6) SCC MACA.No.413/2006 4 121), we feel that only 1/5 of his income need be deducted for his personal expenses. The balance amount of Rs. 2,800/- can be taken as his monthly contribution to his family. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 15 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,04,000/- ( 2,800 x 12 x 15). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,24,000/-. 9. It is seen that no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection . Taking into consideration the age of the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 10. In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 3,49,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9%% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within MACA.No.413/2006 5 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. **A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE** **P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE** sv. MACA.No.413/2006 6