National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lali Abraham and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943** **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 620/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** **TRIBUNAL , MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT:** NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANJERI BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, PALLIKKAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE ROAD, P.O, MANJERI, PIN 676121, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BLDG, MG. ROAD, KOCHI 682035. BY ADV P.G.GANAPPAN ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS** 1 LALI ABRAHAM, AGED 46 YEARS W/O.ABRAHAM P (DECEASED) PULIMOOTTIL (H), CHERUKARA PO, ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN 679328. 2 LAYA ABRAHAM AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM.P., PULIMOOTTIL (H), CHERUKARA, P.O.ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN - 679 328. 3 LEYON ABRAHAM AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM P., PULIMOOTTIL (H), CHERUKARA, P.O.ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPUAM DIST., PIN - 679 328. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.M.ANUROOP SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant – insurance company was the 3[rd] respondent in O.P (MV) No.620/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondents in the appeal were the claimants before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of Abraham (deceased). According to the petitioners, on 11.3.2015 while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-53/E-822 from Perinthalmanna to Alumkoottam, another motorcycle driven by the 1[st] respondent bearing Reg.No.KL-55/K-8598 (offending vehicle) hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **3** deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted to the hospital. However, on 18.3.2015 the deceased lost his life. The 1[st] respondent drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased, who was a plumber by profession and was aged 53 years. The deceased earned a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. The petitioners claimed a total compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The 2[nd] respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte. 4. The 1[st ] respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. 5. The 3[rd] respondent – insurance company filed a written statement admitting that the offending vehicle **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **4** had a valid insurance coverage. It was further averred that the accident did not occur due to the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. 6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A12 in evidence. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,76,000/- from the respondents. The 3[rd] respondent was directed to pay the compensation amount. 8. The sole ground that has been raised in the memorandum of appeal is that the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 9. Ext.A6-charge-sheet filed by the Police after investigation substantiates that the accident occurred **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **5** solely on account of the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent, who drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Admittedly, the 1[st] respondent was the owner and the 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent is liable to indemnify the 1[st] respondent of his liability to pay the compensation amount. 10. The petitioners had averred that the deceased was aged 53 years on the date of accident and was a plumber by profession. They produced Exts.A10 to A12 documents to prove the employment and income of the deceased. Ext.A10 certificate proves that the deceased was a licensed plumber . Ext.A11 is the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority, Perinthalmanna, which substantiates that the deceased had provided 184 connections during the period from 1.4.2014 to 11.3.2015. Ext.A12 is the technical circular issued by the Managing Director of ## **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **6** the Kerala Water Authority which gives the rate provided to plumbers for providing domestic water connections. 11. The Tribunal, after appreciating Ext.A10 to A12, arrived at the conclusion that the deceased had an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., Rs.550/- per day. 12. The appellant had not let in any contraevidence to discredit Exts.A10 to A12 certificates., which were marked in evidence with the consent of the respondents. 13 The fact finding exercise carried out by the Tribunal after accepting Exts.A10 to A12 certificates cannot be found fault, or said to be on the higher side, especially since the deceased was a skilled worker. 15. It is trite law that, the Tribunals are permitted to the do some guess work and exercise its discretition in fixing the reasonable and just compensation for which **7** ## **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on mathematical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has judicially exercised its powers based on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the pleadings and materials on record. 15. Similarly, the Tribunal has fixed the other heads of compensation following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and **Sarala Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation** [2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)]. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **New Insurance Company Ltd v. Kiran Singh & Ors** [2004 (AIR) SCW 4212] has deprecated the practice of insurance companies contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. It is also observed that if such instances are brought to the notice of the court, the **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** **8** court would be obgliged to dismiss such appeals with heavy cost apart from deprecating such practices. 17. It is pertinent to note that the accident had occurred on 11.3.2015. It is more than six years since the respondents/claimants have been denied the fruits of the compensation, i.e, legally due to them. The admission of the appeal that was filed on 23.10.2018, and waiting for its final outcome would cause more miseries and hardship to the respondents/claimants. 18. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award, I am of the considered opinion that there are no justifiable grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal warranting the admission of the appeal which would only be a wastage of judicial time and cause undue harassment to the respondents/claimants. **9** ## **MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018** Following the ratio in **Kiran Singh** (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold. Ma/23.7.2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **/True copy/**