Ramakrishnan, Devayani and Binu v. Rajesh, Thaha and The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV No.969/2010 DATED 27.02.2015 OF MOTOR ``` ``` ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.LATE MANIKKUTTY, SHANKARANKATTIL HOUSE, AIKKARAKKUNNU, EDAKKULAM.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2DEVAYANI, AGED 65 YEARS W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, SHANKARANKATTIL HOUSE, AIKKARAKKUNNU, EDAKKULAM.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3BINU, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, SHANKARANKATTIL HOUSE, AIKKARAKKUNNU, EDAKKULAM.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.N.L.BITTO ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1RAJESH S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, THALIKKULAM DESOM, VALAPPAD.P.O., THRISSUR.680 001. 2THAHA S/O.ABOOBAKAR KUNJU, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHANGARAMKULANGARA, OCHIRA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.686 001. 3THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GLOBAL PLAZA, POONTHOL.P.O., THRISSUR. 680 001. BY ADVS. SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS (PUTHURAN) SRI.K.B.RAMANAND SRI.VINAY RAMDAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The son of appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of appellant No.3 - Late Biju, was riding pillion on a motor cycle on 27.12.2009, when it was hit by the offending Goods Carriage, driven in a rash and negligent manner. He was thrown into the road as a consequence and sustained serious injuries, but unfortunately succumbing to it on the way to hospital. ``` ``` 2.Theappellants,thereupon,filed OP(MV)No.969 of 2010 before the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal,Irinjalakkuda,seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.11,33,000/-, but which has been allowed only to a sum of Rs.6,07,500/-. They assail the compensation as being inadequate. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 3.Sri.V.Vineeth – learned counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that there is clear evidence on record to show that the deceased was working abroad, proved through Ext.A8 - Passport, which contains his Work Visa; and therefore, that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation, reckoning his income to be Rs.30,000/- per month as claimed. He pointed that, however, the learned Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased to be a mere Rs.7,000/- and further reducing it by 30%, for the reason that his driving licence had not been produced. He submitted that both the afore findings of the learned Tribunal are incorrect; and thus prayed that this appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 4.Sri.V.Vineeth concluded asserting that the learned Tribunal has egregiously erred in not ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` granting compensation under the head “Loss of Consortium”, when the appellants are the parents and brother of the deceased; and prayed that this Court may do so. ``` ``` 5.Smt.Dhanya Babu – learned Standing ``` ``` Counsel for the Insurance Company, in response, submitted that the computations adopted by the learned Tribunal in arriving at the compensation are without error, particularly because the accident happened in the year 2009; further, adding that, in fact, it has awarded more than what is permissible because, Rs.25,000/- each has been offered under the heads “Funeral Expenses” and “Loss of Estate”, which is impermissible, going byNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662]. She thus prayed ``` ``` that this appeal be dismissed; however, ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` rectifying the mistakes as afore. ``` ``` 6.I have considered the afore rival submissions and have also gone through 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. ``` ``` 7.There is no doubt that the appellants ``` ``` claimed that the deceased was working abroad and – theyproducedExt.A8Passportin ``` ``` substantiation. The said Passport contains a Work Visa of the deceased; but unfortunately, there is no further evidence at all to show that, either he had joined the employment abroad, or that he was working there at the time of the accident. Obviously, therefore, as matters now stand, Ext.A8 only to establishes that the deceased had ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` a work permit, but without any evidence to show that he was actually working on the strength of the same. ``` ``` 8.Indubitably, therefore, the learned Tribunal could have only adopted a notional figure in favour of the deceased; and while doing so,itfollowedthepostulationsin ``` ``` Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram ``` ``` Alliance Insurance Company Limited[(2011) 13 ``` ``` SCC 236]reckoningRs.7,000/- per month. ``` ``` However, after doing so, it reduced 30% from it, solely for the reason that the licence of the deceased had not been placed on record. I ``` ``` fail to understand how and why this was done ``` ``` because, law is now well settled that when there is no allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` factum of him having a driving licence or otherwise, would be of absolutely no consequence at all. ``` ``` 9.So concluded, since the deceased was only 33 years in age at the time of the ``` ``` accident, 40% future prospects ought to have been added to his income, as authorized by Pranay Sethi(supra). This was not done by the learned Tribunal. ``` ``` 10.That being said, the argument of ``` ``` Smt.Dhanya Babu, that not more than Rs.15,000/- could have been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head “Funeral Expenses” and “Loss of Estate”, is on firm ground, as perPranay Sethi(supra); but the appellants,certainly,areentitledto ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Rs.1,20,000/- under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Consortium”, at the rate of Rs.40,000/-each, ``` ``` since they are the parents and brother of the deceased, again going by Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` In the afore cirucumstances, this appeal is partly allowed in the following manner: ``` ``` a)The compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency” is revised to Rs.9,40,800/-, from Rs.5,04,000/-, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/- per month, with 40% ``` ``` future prospects added and deducting one half towards personal expenses, since he was a bachelor, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` b)An additional amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded to the appellants under the head “Loss of Consortium”, reckoning Rs.40,000/- each in their favour, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` c)The compensation under the head “Funeral Expenses” is reduced to Rs.15,000/- from ``` ``` Rs.25,000/-, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` d)The compensation under the head “Loss of Estate” is reduced to Rs.15,000/- from ``` ``` Rs.25,000/-, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and its findings will remain unaltered. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellants will be entitled to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the respondent – Insurance Company, ``` ``` along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim until it is realised. ``` ``` The appellants will also be entitled to ``` ``` proportionate costs on the enhanced amounts as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1701 OF 2015 ``` ``` 10 ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` SAS ```