Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ABHILASH, SATHEESHKUMAR, RAMACHANDRAN, RATHI RAMACHANDRAN, and SREERAM.R. (MACA No. 2968 of 2019; CO No. 203 of 2019, High Court of Kerala)

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 13TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2968 OF 2019 ``` ``` [APPEAL AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)2351/2012 DATED 8.5.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR] ``` ## `APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:` ``` RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 579,NAIGAUM CROSS ROAD,NEXT TO ROYAL INDUSTRIES, WADALA WEST, MUMBAI-400031,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:` ``` 1RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 61 YEARS PALIYATH, SOWBHAGYA, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY P.O., KANNAMPUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 307 2RATHI RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 53 YEARS W/O.RAMACHADRAN,PALIYATH, SOWBHAGYA, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY P.O., KANNAMPUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 307 3SREERAM.R., AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR),W/O. RAMACHADRAN,PALIYATH, SOWBHAGYA, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY P.O., KANNAMPUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 307,REP BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RAMACHANDRAN PALIYATH 4ABHILASH, S/O. NARAYANA PANIKKER, KUNNATHU HOUSE, PULIYANNUR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 573 5SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O. KUNJU KOCHU, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHAJERY DESAM, VELLILAPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 5784 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 2 ``` THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.09.2023, ALONG WITH CO.203/2019, THE COURT ON 05.10.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 3 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 13TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` CO NO. 203 OF 2019 IN MACA NO.2968 OF 2019 ``` ``` [APPEAL AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.05.2019 IN OP(MV) No.2351/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS ``` ``` CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR] ``` ## `CROSS OBJECTOR/S:` 1 ``` 1. RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 61 YEARS,PALIYATH, SOWBHAGYA, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY P.O., KANNAMPUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 307 2. RATHI RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 53 YEARS,W/O.RAMACHADRAN,PALIYATH, SOWBHAGYA, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY P.O., KANNAMPUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 307 3. SREERAM.R.,AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR),W/O. RAMACHADRAN,PALIYATH, SOWBHAGYA, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY P.O., KANNAMPUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 307,REP BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RAMACHANDRAN PALIYATH ``` ``` BY ADV T.C.SURESH MENON ADV. A.R.NIMOD ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 579,NAIGAUM CROSS ROAD,NEXT TO ROYAL INDUSTRIES, WADALA WEST, MUMBAI-400031,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 2. ABHILASH, S/O. NARAYANA PANIKKER, KUNNATHU HOUSE, PULIYANNUR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 573 3. SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O. KUNJU KOCHU, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHAJERY DESAM, VELLILAPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 5784 ``` ``` THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.9.2023 ALONG WITH MACA NO.2968/2019, THE COURT ON 05.10.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 4 ## `JUDGMENT` ## `[MACA No.2968/2019 & C.O.No.203/2019]` This appeal is filed by the 3[rd] respondent in OP(MV) No.2351/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. 2. The said claim petition was submitted by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, seeking compensation for the death of one Raghuram in a motor accident that occurred on 14.04.2012. The 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents herein are the parents of the deceased, and the 3[rd] respondent is his brother. According to the claimants, the accident occurred when a motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by a Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KL-35-C-3501, driven by the 5[th] respondent herein, owned by the 4[th] respondent and insured with the appellant herein. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as a journalist with a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and he was about to be appointed as a Staff reporter with a revised scale of pay of Rs.17,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. The total compensation claimed by the claimants was Rs.40 lakhs. 3. The 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents in the claim petition, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, were set ex parte. The appellant **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 5 submitted a written statement admitting the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle but disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence and quantum of compensation were also seriously disputed by them. 4. In support of the claim, PW1 was examined from the side of the claimants and Exhibits A1 to A16 were marked. From the side of the appellant, Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 5[th] respondent herein and being the Insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.29,10,000/- and the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants have filed a Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard Smt. Latha Susan Cheriyan, the learned counsel for the appellant and A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 6. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 6 head of loss of dependency is very high and irrational. It is pointed out that, to compute the compensation under the said head, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.17,500/- which is not proper. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would oppose the same. 7. After considering the materials placed on record, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is not acceptable. It is evident that the Tribunal, while fixing the said monthly income, relied on the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A16 certificate. It is discernible from the evidence that the deceased at the relevant time was working as a trainee reporter in “New Indian Express Daily” and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. He also stated that, upon completion of training, he was about to be appointed as a staff reporter with a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-. He further states that, if he was alive, he would have drawn a minimum salary of Rs.60,000/by the time the PW1 was examined. Thus, it is evident that, at the time of the death, the deceased was about to be posted as a staff reporter with a monthly salary of Rs.17,500/- and the future prospects of the said employment were also evident from his deposition, as it extends to the monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the finding entered by the Tribunal in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.17,500/-. This is mainly **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 7 because the monthly income of Rs.17,500/- was certain for him upon completing his training. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong in accepting the said figure as his actual income for the purpose of the computation of compensation for loss of dependency. However, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is 17, whereas as per the principles laid down in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.** **[(2009)6 SCC 121]** it has to be 18, because the deceased was aged 23 at the time of the accident. Thus, while re-assessing the loss of dependency with the revised multiplier and the addition of 40% towards future prospects, the amount would come to Rs.26,46,000/[Rs.17,500+40%x12x18x1/2], whereas the amount awarded under this head by the Tribunal is Rs.24,99,000/-. Therefore, the additional amount the claimants are entitled to under the head of loss of dependency is **Rs.1,47,000/-** . 8. Besides the same, it is also to be noted that no amount is seen granted under the head of loss of consortium, and instead, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted to the parents towards loss of love and affection. Considering the principles laid down in **United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [(2021)11 SCC 780],** the appellants 1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each thereby, an amount of **Rs.80,000/-** is to be awarded under the said head. Since **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 8 the compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no separate compensation needs to be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection as held in **Satinder Kaur (supra)** . Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded under the head of loss of love and affection is liable to be deducted and ordered accordingly. Similarly, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is seen granted under the head of loss of estate, which is in excess by Rs.1,35,000/- in the light of **National** ## **Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662].** Thus, an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- is to be deducted under this head. The funeral expense awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.50,000/-, whereas the actual amount payable under the said head is only Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.35,000/- is to be deducted under this head. 9. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/under the head of pain and suffering, which ought not to have been granted. However, it is discernible that the accident occurred while the deceased was taken to the hospital, which was not an instantaneous death. Therefore, the notional amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted under the head of pain and suffering. Hence, Rs.40,000/- is to be deducted in this head on that ground. 10. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rate of interest fixed as 9% is higher. Considering **MACA No.2968 & CO No.203 of 2019** 9 the date of the accident and other relevant aspects, I find some force in the said contention and therefore, the interest rate is fixed as 8%. 11. While re-assessing the compensation consequent to the revisions of compensation under various heads as referred to above, it can be seen that the Tribunal awarded an excess compensation of Rs.1,33,000/- [(40000+35000+135000+150000) – (147000+80000)] The total compensation receivable by the appellant is fixed as **Rs.27,77,000/-.** Accordingly, this appeal and Cross Objection is disposed of, and the award dated 08.05.2019 in OP(MV)No. 2351/2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is hereby modified by re-fixing the quantum of compensation as **Rs.27,77,000/-** (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs and seventy seven thousand only). Therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation after adjusting the amount already deposited. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` pkk