Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mercy Jacob and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1230/2008 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 30-09-2014 APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANTS:-: 1. MERCY JACOB, W/O.LATE SRI.K.V.YACOB, KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE, ONNAM MILE, KARATTU PALLIKKARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 304. 2. SWAPNA JACOB, D/O.LATE K.V.YACOB, KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE, ONNAM MILE, KARATTU PALLIKKARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 304. 3. SUBHA JACOB, D/O.LATE K.V.JACOB, KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE, ONNAM MILE, KARATTU PALLIKKARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 682 304. R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.Harilal, J.** ==================================== M.A.C.A.No.1179/2015 ==================================== Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2018. ## **JUDGMENT** 1.The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, cochin, the third respondent in O.P. (MV)No.1230/2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor has come up in this appeal, challenging the correctness of the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. The respondents have filed the said original petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of `15,00,000/- with interest, on account of the death of the deceased, by name Yacob. He was Maca1179/2015 ## -:2:- the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3. The appellant insurance company disputed the claim and after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting a compensation of `17,30,900/- with 8% interest to the respondents herein. According to the appellant insurance company, the quantum of compensation granted under various heads of claim are exorbitant and disproportionate with the actual sufferings on account of the death of the deceased. - 2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 3.Learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that the amount determined - under the head, loss of dependency, is Maca1179/2015 ## -:3:- exorbitant. The Tribunal went wrong in taking the gross salary for the purpose of computation of compensation. The Tribunal ought to have found that the employment was not a permanent employment. The Tribunal should have deducted 50% for the personal expenses of the deceased. Secondly, it is contended that the quantum of compensation granted under the heads, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, is also exorbitant, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in _**National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & others**_ **[2017 (5) KHC 350].** - 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments, to justify the amount of compensation granted under various heads of claim. According to him, the amount granted under different heads of claim is just Maca1179/2015 -:4:- and fair warranting no interference in appeal. It is also contended that the Tribunal went wrong by granting `2,500/- only under the head, loss of estate, instead of `15,000/-, as laid down in _**Pranay Sethi**_ 's case ( _supra_ ). - 5.In view of the arguments advanced at the bar, the point to be considered is, whether the quantum of amount determined under the aforementioned heads of claim is just and fair. - 6.Admittedly, the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident. According to the respondents, at the time of the accident, he was working as the Regional Manager of Nucleus Insurance Risk Manager Private Limited and he was having a monthly income of `30,000/- per month. In order to prove his monthly salary, the respondents have produced Exts.A1 Maca1179/2015 ## -:5:- appointment letter of Nucleus Insurance Risk Manager Private Limited, A2 salary slip for the month of December, 2007, A3 full and final settlement slip, A4 copy of Form 16 for the financial year 2006-2007 and A5 copy of Form 16 for the period 0.4.2007 to 31.12.2007, which were marked as A1 to A5. PW1 was examined to prove Exts.A1 to A5. PW1 is the authorised officer of the employer, who issued Exts.A1 to A5. Ext. A5 is the copy of Form 16 for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.12.2007. It shows that during the said period, he was having an income of `2,66,129/- per year. Out of the said amount, `18,404/- had been deducted towards income tax. Thus, the Tribunal has taken `27,525/- as the monthly income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing loss of Maca1179/2015 -:6:- earnings, after deducting income tax. Further, the Tribunal has deducted one third of the monthly income towards living expense and thereafter fixed the monthly income at `18,350/- only. The aforesaid evidence adduced by the respondents would show that they have successfully proved the income of the deceased, after deducting the tax at the time of his death. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding, whereby the Tribunal has taken an amount of `18,350/- only as the monthly income. 7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the said income towards living expense. The dependents are three in number and as per the proposition laid down in _**Sarala Varma v. Delhi**_ Maca1179/2015 ## -:7:- _**Transport Corporation**_ **[2009 (6) SCC 121],** the Tribunal is justified in deducting one third of the monthly income towards living expenses. I do not find any reason to interfere with the reduction of one third of the income made by the Tribunal. 8.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation granted under the heads, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, is exorbitant, in view of the maximum amount fixed by the Supreme Court under the aforesaid conventional heads in _**Pranay Sethi**_ 's case. In view of the maximum amount fixed by the Supreme Court in _**Pranay Sethi**_ 's case, the compensation for funeral expenses will stand reduced to `15,000/- from `25,000/- and compensation for loss of consortium to Maca1179/2015 ## -:8:- `40,000/- from `1,00,000/-. But, in view of the aforesaid decision, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, this court is inclined to enhance the quantum of compensation determined under the head, loss of estate. The quantum of compensation granted under the head, loss of estate, would stand enhanced to `15,000/-. Thus, there is a total deduction of `70,000/- and total enhancement of `12,500/-. After adjusting the said amount, the total compensation payable to the respondents would be `16,73,400/- [`17,30,900/minus `57,500/-]. 9.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. All the pending interlocutory applications will stand closed. All other findings of the Tribunal will stand undisturbed and operative. It is Maca1179/2015 -:9:- needless to say the said amount would carry interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. Sd/- **K.Harilal, Judge** sl. //true copy// P.S. To Judge