Shahina, Sayid Ali, Shafina and Muthubeevi v. Samuel, Shahal and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1970 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1158/2010 DATED 11-04-2013 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SHAHINA AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.LATE NOUSHAD,VAIDHYAN VILA, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 2 SAYID ALI AGED 12 YEARS S/O.LATE NOUSHAD, VAIDHYAN VILA, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT (REP: BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER) 3 SHAFINA AGED 8 YEARS S/O.LATE NOUSHAD,VAIDHYAN VILA, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT (REP: BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER) 4 MUTHUBEEVI AGED 68 YEARS W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,VAIDHYAN VILA,ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.ABE RAJAN.K SRI.SHANE WILFRED MORIS** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**SAMUEL,**| |---|---| ||**PULLEMKERIL HOUSE, THALAVOOR, PUNALUR KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT – 691 305.**| |**2**|**SHAHAL,**| ||**PARAMURIYIL VEEDU, PRAYAR,DEVIKULANGARA VILLAGE –**| ||**691 310.**| 2 ## **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** **3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUNALUR, KOLLAM – 691 305.** **R3 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SMT. K.S.SANTHI** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. One Noushad, aged 38 years died on 15.1.2010 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident took place on 31.12.2009. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a daily labourer. His mother, wife and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.7,48,000/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal. **==> picture [72 x 46] intentionally omitted <==** 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** 4 deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.4,500/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea as regards the income of the deceased, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq** v. **Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** , [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/- in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, I am of the view that the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case could have been certainly reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- itself in the context of the accident took place in 2009 as claimed in the proceedings. **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** 5 In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the dependants of the deceased were four in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged below 40, 40% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 38, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '15'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.9,45,000/(Rs.5000x12x3/4x140/100x15). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.6,07,500/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,37,500/-. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering. As no amount has been granted by the Tribunal, I **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** 6 deem it appropriate in the facts and circumstances in the case to grant to the claimants Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation under that head. 7. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2009, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.35,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards compensation for loss of consortium. Similarly, in the light of the said decision, the Tribunal should have granted to the claimants Rs.12,500/towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.12,500/towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.25,000/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.35,000/- under those heads. 8. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and** **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** 7 **others** (2018 ACJ 2782), having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2009, I am of the view that the mother of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, totalling to Rs.1,20,000/-. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- by way of additional compensation. 9. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 10. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,02,500/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,02,500/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the 8 ## **M.A.C.A No.1970 OF 2013** Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** DK