High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2015-03-25Appeal allowed; modified compensation with 9% i...

Parukuttyamma and others v. Georgekutty K.V. and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1863 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
P.V. Asha
Judgment Date: 2015-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal is allowed. The 10% contributory negligence finding against the deceased is vacated. The Tribunal’s award is re-determined: total compensation enhanced to Rs.8,27,500 with 9% interest per annum. The Insurance Company shall deposit the modified amount, less any amount already deposited, within three months. The 50% share of the total goes to appellant No.2 and the remaining balance to appellants 3 and 4. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; modified compensation with 9% interest; directions to deposit within three months; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Parukuttyamma
Beena
K.R. Vishak
Vipin K.R. (minor)

Respondents

Georgekutty K.V.
Josekutty
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil)
• Sri K.B. Arunkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.C. Haridas
• Sri George Cherian (Thiruvalla)
• Sri A.R. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Parukuttyamma, Beena, K.R.Vishak andVipin K.R. (minor), the appellants, challenge the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala’s award in MACT No. 250/2010 dated 27-03-2013, arising from a 18-02-2010 accident in which Rajendran died riding a motorcycle. The Tribunal attributed 10% contributory negligence to the deceased for not possessing a valid driving license, leading to reduction of compensation. The appellants contend Ext. A8 shows the license existed, albeit it had expired before the accident, and rely on Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh to argue that mere non-possession does not establish negligence. They also dispute the quantum of compensation: a Rs. 5,000 monthly income, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of love/affection and consortium awards; they urge enhancement and rely on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh to justify higher awards, citing Nagarajappa for reasonable wage norms in the absence of documentary proof. The respondents defended the lower tribunal’s findings. The High Court vacates the Tribunal’s 10% negligence finding, accepts Rs.5,000 as reasonable monthly income, and recomputes total compensation to Rs.8,27,500 with 9% interest, 50% to appellant No.2 and the remainder to appellants 3 and 4. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount within three months. Appeal allowed; no costs in the appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mere non-possession of a driving licence by itself is not enough to reach a finding of rashness and negligence in driving (Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh)
If a person drives without a licence, he commits an offence, but that may not by itself lead to a finding of negligence ( Sudhir Kumar Rana)
Even in the absence of documentary evidence, if the claim is not exorbitant, the same can be accepted (Nagarajappa v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance)
The Tribunal’s reliance on cases for computation of compensation can be persuasive in fixating awards such as loss of earning, loss of estate, and love/affection amounts (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal’s 10% contributory negligence on account of non-possession of a driving license is unsustainable. Ext. A8 proves a license; though expired before the accident, reliance was placed on Sudhir Kumar Rana to show non-possession does not by itself prove negligence. They contended the claimed monthly income of Rs. 5,000 is reasonable given the agricultural labour context and urged higher compensation for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and love/affection/loss of consortium in line with Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh and other precedents. They urged reassessment of compensation and a fair division among appellants, with interest at 9%.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the deceased’s lack of a valid license signifies contributory negligence, justifying stricter assessment of liability and compensation. They supported the Tribunal’s reliance on law and evidence, including the affirmed wage baseline and purported loss elements. They argued the award should be sustained or appropriately maintained based on established precedents.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh	2008(3) KLT 322	Positive	The Court uses this decision to support the proposition that mere non-possession of a driving licence does not automatically establish negligence.
Nagarajappa v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited	2011(13) SCC 326	Positive	Cited to support reasonable wage assessment in absence of strict documentary evidence.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	2013(3) KLT 89	Positive	Used to justify higher compensation for loss of love and affection and related heads.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Parukuttyamma and others v. Georgekutty K.V. and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/4TH CHAITHRA, 1937** **MACA.No. 1863 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 250/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA DATED 27-03-2013** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** **---------------------------------** ## **1. PARUKUTTYAMMA** **W/O.VELAYUDHAN ACHARI, KOZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. BEENA** **W/O.LATE RAJENDRAN, KOZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. K.R.VISHAK** **S/O.LATE RAJENDRAN, KOZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **4. VIPIN K.R. (MINOR)** **S/O.LATE RAJENDRAN, KOZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER BEENA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR** **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------** **1. GEORGEKUTTY K.V. S/O.GEROGE, KOMARATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, MOONILAVU KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 586.** ## **2. JOSEKUTTY** **S/O.THOMA, KOMARATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR P.O. PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 573.** **MACA.No. 1863 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------** **-2-** ## **3. THE ORIENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD** **CHEERAMVELILI BUILDING, N.H.220, KANJIRAPALLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 507.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V. ASHA, JJ.** ................................................. . ## **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013** .............................................. Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2015. ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **T.R.Ramachandran Nair** The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the deceased, Sri Rajendran who died in an accident which occurred on 18-2-2010. The deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the accident, who was riding his motor cycle. The appellants are respectively the mother, wife and two minor children of the deceased. 2. The deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-5/T-6447 from Ramapuram to Koothattukulam bhagom and it was hit by a car bearing No.Kl-35/A-8172 owned by the second respondent. Mr. Rajendran was thrown away from the vehicle and sustained serious head injuries. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013 2** Kottayam and he died on the same day at 3.pm. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal arrived on the finding that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased also (10%), on the ground that the deceased does not have any valid license. It is submitted that Ext.A8 will prove the existence of his driving license. But the license had expired before the date of the accident. It is submitted that the same is not the cause of the accident and as laid down the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder singh (2008(3) KLT 322),** no negligence can be attributed to the deceased. 4. With regard to the compensation awarded, it is submitted that the monthly income claimed at Rs **.** 5,000/is reasonable and PW3 was examined to support the earnings. It is also submitted that towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.5,000/-, for loss of estate an amount of Rs.5,000/-, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 2[nd] petitioner and for compensation for loss of love and **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013 3** affection, Rs.15,000/-, which are also liable to be enhanced, going by the judgment in **Rajesh vs.Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89)** 5. In **Sudhir Kumar Rana's case (2008 (3) KLT 322),** the Apex Court held that mere non-possession of driving licence by itself is not enough to reach a finding of rashness and negligence in driving. It was also held that “if a person drives his vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident”. In the light of the above, it can be seen that there was no allegation against him that he was driving the vehicle negligently. We do not agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that he was liable for contributory negligence at 10% for mere non-possession of license. Apart from the same, in the charge sheet marked as Ext.A5 the accused is the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, we vacate the said finding on issue No.1. 6. As far as monthly income of the deceased is concerned, Rs.5000/- claimed was reasonable. PW3's **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013 4** evidence is to the effect that he was working under him as an agricultural labourer. The accident occurred in the year 2010. Therefore, even if Rs. 200/- per day is taken, and by reckoning 25 days labour, the same will be Rs.5000/-. Even during that period, for manual labourers the wages was more than the said amount in this State, which is a matter of common knowledge. In **Nagarajappa vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited** ( **2011 (13) SCC 326),** the apex court had found that Rs. 4500/- claimed towards the wages of a labourer, for the year 2004-05 is reasonable. It was also held that even in the absence of documentary evidence, if the claim is not exorbitant, the same can be accepted by the Tribunal or by the courts. We are therefore of the view that Rs.5000/- claimed as monthly income in this case cannot be said to be exorbitant. 7. As far as, compensation for funeral expenses, compensation for loss of consortium, for loss of love and affection are concerned, going by the judgment in **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013** **5** **Rajesh's case** (supra), the claimants will be entitled for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1 lakh each. Therefore, we are recomputing the compensation in the following manner. |PART 1|AMOUT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL|COMPENSATION REFIXED| |---|---|---| |Transport to hospital|2000|2000| |Damages to clothing|500|500| |Extra nourishment|Not entitled|Not entitled| |Hospital expenses|N.A|N.A| |Funeral expenses|5000|25000| |Pain and suffering|10000|10000| |Loss of estate|5000|30000| |Loss of dependancy|4,80,000|560000 (5000x12x2/3x14)| |Compensation for loss of love and affection|15000|1,00,000| |Loss of consortium to the petitioner|15000|1,00,000| |Mental shock to petitioners 1,3 and 4|Not entitled|Not entitled| |Loss of earnings|N.A|N.A| |**TOTAL**|**5,32,500**|**8,27,500**| (Rupees eight lakhs twenty seven thousand five hundred only) Out of the total compensation allowed by this court, 50% will be shared by the appellant No.2 and the **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013 6** remaining amount will be equally shared by appellant Nos. 3 and 4. We permit all the appellants to withdraw the amount. We also award 9% interest per annum for the enhancement of the compensation. The Insurance Company will deposit the modified amount, less any amount already deposited before the Tribunal, within a period of three months. Appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE** **P.V. ASHA JUDGE** smm # **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013 7** # **M.A.C.A. No.1863 of 2013 8**