Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. Lalitha and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946 MACA NO. 3471 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINSTTHEAWARDDATED23.03.2016INOPMVNO.554OF2012OF MOTORACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,THALASSERY ``` ## **`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` RELIANCEGENERALINSURANCECO.LTD KANNUR,REPRESENTEDBYITSDEPUTY MANAGER,REGIONALOFFICE,ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.GEORGECHERIAN(SR.) SMT.LATHASUSANCHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:`** - **`1 N.LALITHA`** ``` D/O.RAGAVANNAIR,NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` 2PRASEETHAN. D/O.THAMBAN(LATE),NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` - **`3 MINI N.`** ``` D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),NAMBRADATH HOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` - **`4 LATHIKA N.`** ``` D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` 5RANJITHKUMARN. ``` ``` S/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 2 ``` BYADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR ``` ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY HEARDON30.05.2024,ALONGWITHCO.49/2018,THECOURTONTHE SAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 3 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS THURSDAY,THE30[TH]DAYOFMAY2024/9THJYAISHTA,1946 CONO.49OF2018 ``` ``` AGAINSTTHEAWARDDATED23.03.2016INOP(MV)554/2012OFMOTOR ACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,THALASSERY ``` ``` CROSSOBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS: ``` **`1. N.LALITHA`** ``` D/O.RAGAVANNAIR,AGED67,NAMBRADATH HOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIA MOTTAMMAL,KANNUR-670331. ``` **`2. PRASEETHA N., D/O. THAMBAN (LATE), AGED`** ``` 48,NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` **`3. MINI N.`** ``` D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),AGED45, NAMBRADATHHOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIA MOTTAMMAL,KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` 4.LATHIKAN. D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),AGED42, NAMBRADATHHOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` **`5. RANJITH KUMAR N.`** ``` S/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),AGED39, NAMBRADATHHOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, VIAMOTTAMMAL,KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` BYADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR ``` ``` RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ``` ``` RELIANCEGENERALINSURANCECO.LTD,KANNUR, REPRESENTEDBYITSDEPUTYMANAGER, REGIONALOFFICE,ERNAKULAM-682011. ``` ``` BYADVSRI.GEORGECHERIAN(SR) SMT.K.S.SANTHI ``` ``` THISCROSSOBJECTION/CROSSAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON30.05.2024,ALONGWITHMACA.3471/2016,THECOURTON THESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 4 ## **J U D G M E N T** The appeal is at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent/insurer and the Cross Objection is at the instance of the claimants in OP(MV) No.554 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. According to the appellant, the compensation awarded is excessive in nature, and according to the cross objectors, it is on the lower side. 2. On 12.11.2011 at about 10.15 p.m, Mr.K.V. Thamban, the husband of the 1[st] cross objector/1[st] claimant, and father of cross objectors 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5, met with a road traffic accident and he succumbed to the injuries on 03.06.2012. While he was walking through Pappinissery N.H road, he was knocked down by KL-13E/7867 mini lorry driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He was rushed to AKG Hospital, Kannur and from there he was referred to Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, where he was admitted and treated for four days. Thereafter he was taken to Unity Health Complex, Mangalore for better treatment and he was an inpatient there for 34 days. Again he was taken to Koyili Hospital, Kannur and treated there as an inpatient for 55 days, and on 03.06.2012, he breathed his last. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.18 lakh. But, MACA No.3471 of 2016 & 5 Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.14,63,800/-. 3. Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/insurer would contend that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and hence they preferred MACA No.3471 of 2016. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence they preferred Cross Objection No.49 of 2018. 4. The death of Mr.K.V Thamban in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.11.2011 and the insurance policy of the offending mini lorry are not under dispute. 5. Now this Court is called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned Award warranting interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the cross objectors. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that, though the learned Tribunal found the wife of the deceased alone as the dependent of the deceased, instead of deducting 50% towards personal expenses, 1/3[rd] was deducted and it is erroneous. Whereas learned counsel for the cross objectors would submit that, the deceased was an ex serviceman working as a Security Guard and he was having total monthly income of Rs.13,795/- including MACA No.3471 of 2016 & 6 Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 his monthly pension of Rs.7,595/-. But, learned Tribunal fixed a meager income of Rs.6,000/- only as his notional income, and that has to be interfered with. 8. Exts.A12 and A13 are the extract of Pension Pass Book and Pension Register of the deceased. The pension amount received by the deceased as Rs.7,595/- per month is not disputed. Regarding his monthly income from his security job, Ext.A11 certificate was produced which will show that his monthly income was Rs.6,200/-. So, his total monthly income has to be taken as Rs.13,795/-. Since his wife alone was dependent on him, based on the decision **Sarla Verma** _vs._ **Delhi Transport Corporation** [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], 50% is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the balance income is Rs.6,898/-. The multiplier applicable is 5 as he was aged 72. So, the compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.4,13,880/(6898x12x5). After deducting Rs.2,40,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the cross objectors are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.1,73,880/- as enhanced compensation under the head loss of dependency. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- each under the MACA No.3471 of 2016 & 7 Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 head funeral expenses and loss of estate. Based on the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the cross objectors were eligible to be granted only Rs.15,000/- each. So, Rs.10,000/- each is to be deducted from funeral expenses and loss of estate, awarded by the Tribunal, which comes to Rs.20,000/- in total. 10. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2 lakh towards loss of love and affection and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium. Based on _Pranay Sethi’s_ case cited supra, cross objectors, who are the wife and children of the deceased, are entitled to get Rs.40,000/each under the head loss of consortium which will come to Rs.2 lakh in total. So, Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in excess of what was eligible by the cross objectors is liable to be deducted. 11. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and it need not be interfered with. |**Head of claim**<br>**(1)**|**Amount**<br>**awarded by**<br>**the Tribunal**<br>**(2)**|**Amount**<br>**awarded in**<br>**appeal**<br>**(3)**|**Amount**<br>**deducted in**<br>**appeal**<br>**(4)**|**Difference to be**<br>**drawn as**<br>**enhanced**<br>**compensation**<br>**(5)**| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of<br>dependency|Rs.2,40,000/-|Rs.4,13,880/-|-|Rs.1,73,880/-| |Funeral<br>expenses/<br>loss of estate|Rs.25,000/-<br>Rs.25,000/-|Rs.15,000/-<br>Rs.15,000/-|Rs.10,000/-<br>Rs.10,000/-|-| MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 8 |Loss of love<br>and affection/<br>Loss of<br>consortium|Rs.2,00,000/-<br>Rs.50,000/-|Rs.2,00,000/-|Rs.50,000/-|-| |---|---|---|---|---| |**Total**|||**Rs.70,000/-**|**Rs.1,73,880/-**| |**Enhancement after adjusting excess payment: (173880-70000)=Rs.1,03,880/-**||||| 12. In the result, the cross objectors are entitled to get Rs.1,03,880/- towards enhanced compensation. The appellant/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,03,880/(Rupees One lakh three thousand eight hundred and eighty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the cross objectors/claimants in the ratio 60:10:10:10:10 after deducting their liabilities, if any, towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal and Cross Objection are allowed in part to the extent as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** smp