Santhamma.T.L. and Others v. V.Teresammal, T.Paul Raj and The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## `MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.08.2009 IN OP(MV)NO.1761/05 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA] ``` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SANTHAMMA.T.L., AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.MANIYAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKEVELIYIL, MARARIKULAM(S)PANCHAYATH, KALAVOOR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2MANOJ.M, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKEVELIYIL, MARARIKULAM(S)PANCHAYATH, KALAVOOR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3MAYADEVI, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.MANIYAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKEVELIYIL, MARARIKULAM(S)PANCHAYATH, KALAVOOR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` - `1 V.TERESAMMAL, W/O.MARIYADHA, SUNDAVILAI, KAKKAIYAN VILAI, KARUNGAL.P.O, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU,PIN-629157.` - `2 T.PAUL RAJ, S/O.THANKAIAN, CHUTTAN VILAYIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMKARA TEMPLE, MATHIKODE PANCHAYATH, WARD III, MATHIKODE.P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, PIN-629852.` - `3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 001.` ``` BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` This matter is of the year 2013 and has not been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem that it can be disposed of, after being formally admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on record, handed over by them across the Bar. I, therefore, admit this Appeal and proceed to dispose it of finally, with the consent of both sides. 2.On 17.07.2005, late Maniyan Pillai was riding a bicycle through the Alappuzha–Ernakulam National Highway, when it was hit by the offending mini bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained injuries and later succumbed to it; thereupon, his legal heirs – the appellants herein – filed OP(MV) No.1761/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha (‘Tribunal’, for short), seeking compensation of an amount of ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Rs.7,00,000/-; but which has been allowed only for a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-. They thus impugn the Award as being inadequate. ``` ``` 3.Smt.V.Shylaja – learned counsel for the ``` ``` appellants, argued that the singular reason why the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is so low is because it has reckoned the notional ``` ``` income of the deceased to be merely Rs.2,500/-, against the claim of Rs.4,500/-. She argued that, had this figure been taken, the ``` ``` compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency” ``` ``` would have been much higher; further, asserting ``` ``` that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting only Rs.10,000/- under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Consortium”, though each of the appellants is entitled to Rs.40,000/-. ``` ``` 4.Smt.V.Shylaja concluded her submissions saying that the compensation under the head “Funeral Expenses” is inadequate; while no ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` amount has been granted under the head “Loss of Estate”, even though the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. ``` ``` v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662] obligated the Tribunal to award Rs.15,000/- each under these heads. She thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 5.In response, Smt.P.A.Reziya – learned ``` ``` Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that since the accident happened in the year 2005, the computations arrived at by the Tribunal are without error. She contended that the present standards could not have been ``` ``` adopted by the Tribunal, taking note of the fact ``` ``` that the accident happened more than 18 years ``` ``` ago. ``` ``` 6.Smt.P.A.Reziya concluded saying that the learned Tribunal could not have granted ``` ``` compensation under the heads “Loss of Love and ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Affection” and “Pain and Suffering”, when it had already granted compensation under the head “Loss of Consortium”, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780]. ``` ``` 7.I have considered the afore rival ``` ``` submissions on the touchstone of 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. ``` ``` 8.As rightly argued by Smt.V.Shylaja, the learned Tribunal has adopted the notional income ``` ``` of the deceased to be a mere Rs.2,500/-. It has done so, recording that no cogent evidence has been led by the claimants to establish his actual income. However, going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` ``` -6- ``` ``` Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], even in the case of a person with an unascertainable income or who is working as a “Coolie” in the year 2005, the minimum figure to be reckoned is Rs.5,000/- per month. ``` ``` 9.However, since the claimants have only asked for Rs.4,500/- as the income of late Maniyan Pillai, I am of the firm view that said figure ought to have been acceded to. In addition, an amount equal to 25% ought to have been granted as future prospects, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi(supra), since Maniyan Pillai was only 47 years old at the time of his ``` ``` unfortunate death. ``` ``` 10.However,asrightlyarguedby Smt.P.A.Reziya, the learned Tribunal could not have granted compensation under the heads “Loss of Love and Affection” and “Pain and Suffering”, ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` ``` -7- ``` ``` when it had already granted compensation under the head “Loss of Consortium”, as per Satinder Kaur (supra). However, qua “Loss of Consortium”, ``` ``` I am without doubt that the stipulations in Pranay Sethi (supra) ought to have persuaded the ``` ``` Tribunal to grant Rs.40,000/- to each of the appellants, since all three of them were, ``` ``` admittedly, dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident. ``` ``` Finally, as regards the heads “Funeral ``` ``` Expenses” and “Loss of Estate”,Pranay Sethi ``` ``` (supra) authorizes an amount of Rs.15,000/- ``` ``` each. The appellants are certainly entitled to the same. ``` ``` Resultantly, this Appeal is partly allowed in the following manner: ``` ``` (a)The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Dependency” is enhanced to Rs.5,85,000/- (Rupees five lakhs eighty five thousand only), reckoning ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` ``` -8- ``` ``` the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month, with 25% future prospects added to it and one-third deducted as his ``` ``` personal expenses. ``` - `(b) The compensation under the head “Loss` ``` of Consortium” is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- ``` ``` (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only), at the ``` ``` rate of Rs.40,000/- per head to each of the ``` ``` appellants. ``` - `(c) The compensation under the head “Funeral` ``` Expenses” is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees ``` ``` fifteen thousand only), from Rs.3,000/- as ``` ``` awarded by the Tribunal. ``` - `(d) In addition, an amount of Rs.15,000/-` ``` (Rupees fifteen thousand only) is awarded to the ``` ``` appellants towards compensation for “Loss of Estate”. ``` - `(e) In view of the above, the compensation` ``` awarded by the Tribunal under the heads “Loss of ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Love and Affection” and “Pain and Suffering” are deleted. ``` ``` (f)In all other heads, the compensation ``` ``` granted by the Tribunal will remain intact. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellants will be at full ``` ``` liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced ``` ``` by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along ``` ``` with interest at the rate of 7.5%, as awarded by ``` ``` the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is recovered.They will also be entitled to ``` ``` proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` **==> picture [377 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ``` calculating the interest as afore, a period of ``` ``` 1265 days - being the delay in filing this ``` ``` Appeal – shall stand excluded. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed ``` ``` above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of ``` ``` MACA NO. 1387 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` two months from the date of receipt of a copy ``` ``` this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ```