SANTHA and Others v. V.K. Chandran, Jayaprakash and The United India Insurance Company Limited

M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **MACA NO. 1355 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1015/2006 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR** ## **APPELLANT/S:** 1 SANTHA, AGED 44 YEARS, WIDOW OF MOHABNAN. 2 ARUN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHANAN. 3 AKHIL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHANAN. 4 PADMAVATHY, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.LATE MEENAKSHY. 5 SASIDHARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHY. 6 RAGHAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHY. 7 BHARGAVAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHY. 8 SAHADEVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHY, ALL ARE RESIDING AT THARAYIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MELECHUNGAM, PANNIYANKKARA P.O., VANIYAMPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 V.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT VAKKATH HOUSE, EDAPALAM, P.O.PATTIKAD, THRISSUR 680 652. M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 2 2 JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.AYYAPPAN RESIDING AT MATHUPPULLY HOUSE, PULINCHUVADU, PEECHI, THRISSUR - 6802 653. 3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 3 ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------** **M.A.C.A.No.1355 of 2022 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** **1.** The legal heirs of the victim, who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(M.V.)No.1015 of 2006, are the appellants herein. The award dated 29.06.2012 in the said original petition is assailed in this appeal. The victim passed away in an accident, which took place on 14.04.2006. He was aged 40 years [reckoned as 41 years by the Tribunal] and was a Heavy Vehicle Driver at the relevant time. **2.** Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records. **3.** The following are the heads under which the M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 4 appellants seek enhancement. Firstly, learned counsel pointed out that, although a sum of Rs.7,500/- was claimed towards income, as supported by Ext-A11 salary certificate, the Tribunal reckoned only Rs.5,000/-. It is true that, Ext.A11 depicts an amount of Rs.7,500/-. However, the person who issued Ext.A11 was not examined, with the result, there were no tangible proof before the Tribunal to reckon the salary. In the circumstances, all what can be taken is the index stated in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [2011 KHC 4675]. As per this decision, the income pertaining to the year 2006 is Rs.5,500/-. The same is therefore reckoned as the monthly income. **4.** Learned counsel assails the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was aged 41 years as on the date of accident. Learned counsel submitted that, his date of birth was 01.02.1966 and that, he was only 40 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the correct M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 5 multiplier to be applied was 15 as against 14 applied by the Tribunal. This Court takes note that the age shown in the petition is 40 years and it is not discernible as to how the Tribunal took the age as 41 years. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted and the correct multiplier will be 15, reckoning the age as 40. **5.** The third ground is with respect to future prospects, which is not granted at all by the Tribunal. Appellants are entitled to 25% of the income of the deceased towards the future prospects, going by the decision in **National Insurance Company Ltd.** v. **Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662(S.C.)]. **6.** Another ground is with respect to loss on account of Consortium. The deceased is survived by his wife, two children and mother. All what is seen awarded towards consortium is Rs.25,000/- for the wife. A sum of M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 6 Rs.32,000/- is given towards love and affection. Going by Pranay Sethi (supra), a sum of Rs.40,000/- is liable to be given as consortium to all legal heirs, including the mother. [See in this regard, **Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others** [2018 KHC 6697]]. This Court finds that a sum of Rs.1,60,000/is due to the claimants/appellants under the head consortium. However, the amount of Rs.32,000/- granted under the head love and affection is liable to be excluded. **7.** The next ground is loss of estate and funeral expenses, whereunder Rs.5000/- each is seen awarded as against the entitled amount of Rs.15,000/-. Going by Pranay Sethi's case, the amount payable under the said heads would be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each. **8.** In the result, M.A.C.A. is allowed. Compensation amount payable to the appellants/claimants is reworked M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 7 as follows. |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount**<br>**awarded by**<br>**the**<br>**Tribunal**|**Total amount after**<br>**enhancement in**<br>**appeal**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings||| |2|Medical expenses|13,037|13,037| |3|Funeral Expenses|5,000|15,000| |4|Bystander Expenses|600|600| |5|Transportation Expenses|5,000|5,000| |6|Extra Nourishment||| |7|Damage to clothing||| |8|Pain and Suffering|10,000|10,000| |9|Loss of dependency|6,30,000|9,28,125<br>[5500+1375=6875<br>6875x12x15x3/4]| |10|Loss of love and<br>affection|32,000|-| |11|Loss of consortium|25,000|1,60,000| |12|Loss of estate|5,000|15,000| M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 8 7,25,637 11,46,762 rounded to 7,25,700 Amount enhanced = Rs.11,46,762/ – Rs.7,25,700 = **Rs.4,21,062/** **9.** The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 209 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 18.11.2021 in C.M.A.No.1/2013 in this appeal. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month M.A.C.A.1355 of 2013 9 thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. **Sd/-** **C.JAYACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** Sbna/