Saralamma and Arya Mol A.S. v Abdul Salam, Aneesh, and The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.10.2014 IN OP(MV)NO.1229/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM] ``` ## `APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS 1 & 2:` - `1 SARALAMMA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE SASIDHARAN, AATTUPURATH VEEDU, KOTHAPURAM CHERRY, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.` ``` 2ARYA MOL A.S., AGED 22 YRS, D/O.LATE SASIDHARAN RESIDING AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` - `1 ABDUL SALAM, S/O. MUHAMMAD KUNJU, PARANKIAZHIKATHU, THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPLLY - 690 518.` - `2 ANEESH, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN KUNJU, MANALVETTATHU THEKKATHIL, PALAKKAD MURI, THEVALAKKAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 518.` ``` 3THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AMARJYOTHI COMPLEX, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM- 691008. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SMT. LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN, SC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` This matter is of the year 2015 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.The mother and sister of Athira, who was ``` ``` unfortunately killed in a road accident on ``` ``` 13.01.2011 - when the motor cycle she was riding ``` ``` pillion was collided with the offending bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner – have filed this Appeal, impugning the compensation ``` ``` awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam,(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in OP(MV)No.1229/2011, as ``` ``` being inadequate. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` 3.Smt.Baby Sujatha - learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the income adopted by the Tribunal in favour of her client is inadequate because, the deceased was only 16 ``` ``` years old and a very bright student, at the time of the accident and her unfortunate death. She further argued that the compensation under the head “Loss of Estate” is too low; while the compensationfor “Loss of Consortium”has unfairly been denied. She thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 4.In response, Smt.Latha Susan Cherian – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that, since the deceasedwas only 16 years in age and had no earnings at the time of the accident, the learned Tribunal was without error in having adopted her notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. She asserted that this is in terms of the settled principles ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` of law, as declared by this Court and the ``` ``` Hon’ble Supreme Court. She, however, pointed out that certain impermissible amounts have been ``` ``` granted under the head “Loss of Love and Affection” and compensation for “Future Prospects”; while Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the head “Funeral Expenses”, though not more than Rs.15,000/- could have been ganted as perNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662)]. She thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed, however, correcting the afore heads. ``` ``` 5.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. ``` ``` 6.I will first answer the contention ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` relating to the adequacy of the notional income adopted by the Tribunal in favour of the deceased. This court has already taken a view, in Vinod and Others v. Suresh Kumar and Others ``` ``` [2023 (2) KLT 389], that in the case of a child, who is either a student or without earnings, the minimum notional incometo be taken is ``` ``` Rs.30,000/- per annum. This decision was taken being guided by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali ``` ``` v. Shyam Kishore Murmu[(2022) 1 SCC 317], ``` ``` R.K.Malik& Anotherv. KiranPal&Ors [(2009) ``` ``` 14 SCC 1],Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [(2020) 7 SCC 256] and Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others [(2014) 1 SCC 244]. I see no reason to deny this to the appellants herein, particularly when the deceased was a young girl, who was very bright in her studies. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -6- ``` ``` 7.That being said, there is great force in the submissions of Smt.Baby Sujatha that an amount of Rs.15,000/- ought to have been granted under the head “Loss of Estate”; while a minimum of Rs.40,000/- was eligible to the 1st appellant ``` ``` under the head “Loss of Consortium”, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` 8.However, the learned Tribunal appears to have erred in having granted Rs.25,000/- under the head “Funeral Expenses”, because not more than Rs.15,000/- could have been granted as per ``` ``` Pranay Sethi(supra); while no amounts could ``` ``` have been granted under the heads “Future ``` ``` Prospects” and “Loss of Love and Affection” as ``` ``` perUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. v. ``` ``` Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur[(2021) 11 SCC ``` ``` 780]. ``` ``` 9.That said, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is ``` ``` certainly eligible to the 1st appellant under the ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -7- ``` ``` head “Loss of Consortium”, since she is the mother of the deceased. ``` ``` Resultantly, this Appeal is partly allowed in the following manner: ``` ``` (a)The compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency” is enhanced to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees ``` ``` three lakhs sixty thousand only), from ``` ``` Rs.1,80,000/-, reckoning the notional income of ``` ``` the deceased to be Rs.30,000/- per annum and ``` ``` deducting one third from it, towards his ``` ``` personal expenses. ``` ``` (b)The compensation under the head “Loss of Estate”is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), from Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` (c)The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Funeral Expenses” is reduced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), from Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, as per ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` ``` -8- ``` ``` Pranay Sethi (supra). ``` ``` (d)An additional amount of Rs.40,000/- ``` ``` (Rupees forty thousand only) is awarded under ``` ``` the head “Loss of Consortium” in favour of the ``` ``` first appellant, in terms ofPranay Sethi ``` ``` (supra). ``` ``` (e) Axiomatically, the compensation awarded ``` ``` by the tribunal under the head “loss of love and affection”and “Future Prospects” are both 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 modified ``` ``` by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 9%, 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 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1527 OF 2015 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ```