Shailaja and Anchu Do.Anilkumaar Do. v. Ranjith P.R., Byju N.K., The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

MACA.No.329/12 1 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ # _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA,_ _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 329 OF 2012_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 975/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM_ ## _APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:_ - _1 SHAILAJA, W/O.ANILKUMAR, PALISSERY HOUSE, P.O.VELUR, VAYANASALA ROAD, WADAKKANCHERRY (VIA), THRISSUR, (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED)._ - _2 ANCHU DO.ANILKUMAR DO. DO._ _BY ADV SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ - _1 RANJITH P.R., S/O.RAVI P.K., POTTAYIL HOUSE, AVINISSERY P.O., THRISSUR-680 313, (RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KL-484078)._ - _2 BYJU N.K. S/O.KOCHAPPAN, NELLIKKAL HOUSE, VELUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680601, (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO. KL-48-4078)._ - _3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PERINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NOTH, THRISSUR-680001,_ MACA.No.329/12 2 _(POLICY NO.760301/31/06/01/00016463 VALID FROM 5/2/2007 TO 4/2/2008._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR SRI.P.BHARATHAN_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.329/12 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners 2 and 3 in O.P.MV.No.975/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The claim petition was filed by the appellants along with the 1[st] petitioner, who died during the pendency of the claim petition, seeking compensation for the death of one Akhil, who died due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident that occurred on 15.07.2007. The deceased was the son of the 1[st] and 2[nd] petitioners in the claim petition and the brother of the 3[rd] petitioner in the claim petition. 2. The accident occurred when the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider., fell into a gutter, consequent to which the deceased was thrown away and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur but he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The said motorcycle was being ridden by the 1[st] respondent at the time of the accident, and the 2[nd] respondent was the owner. The motorcycle was insured MACA.No.329/12 4 with the 3[rd] respondent as well. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 18 years at the time of the accident and was working as a welding worker with a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. As compensation, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed. 3. Before the Tribunal, the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company alone contested the matter. They filed a written statement admitting the coverage of the policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed by them. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1, and through him, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal passed an award allowing a total compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- and the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. This appeal is submitted by the appellants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and seeking enhancement. MACA.No.329/12 5 4. Heard Sri.Sheji P.Abraham, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Bharathan learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low. It was pointed out that even though the deceased was working as a welder, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal was only Rs.2,500/-. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the monthly income claimed was Rs.4,000/- only, and considering the principles laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** higher income should be taken. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would oppose the aforesaid contention. However, after considering all the materials placed on record, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants. Since the accident occurred in the year 2007, under no circumstances MACA.No.329/12 6 the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- can be treated as a proper monthly income. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, in **Ramachandrappa’s** case, concerning a coolie, the monthly income was taken as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2004. However, the fact that the appellants have claimed only Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income is also a relevant aspect to be noticed. It is to be noted that the appellants are the best persons to know the income of the deceased. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and also the fact that the monthly income claimed appears to be too much on the lower side, some indulgence is to be shown in the light of the settled position of law. Therefore, the principles laid down in **Ramachandrappa** (supra) and **Syed Sadiq** (supra) as such can be applied, irrespective of the fact that the monthly income claimed is lower. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency. It is seen from the records that no addition was made by the Tribunal towards the future prospects of the MACA.No.329/12 7 deceased, whereas the same is a mandatory addition to be made in the light of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].** Besides the same, the multiplier to be taken is the one applicable to the age of the deceased and not that of the parents. Thus, while re-working the compensation with the above criteria, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs. **7,56,000/-** [(5000+40%) x 12 x 18 x 50/100] and after deducting Rs.2,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head the additional amount under this head would come to Rs.5,46,000/-. In addition to the same, an amount of Rs.80,000/- is to be granted towards the loss of consortium to the parents. The amount awarded under the head of loss of estate is only Rs.5,000/- (Rs.10,000/-) whereas, the proper amount is Rs.10,000/- and hence an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted. Similarly, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded under the head of funeral expenses as well. Thus, the total compensation 8 MACA.No.329/12 receivable by the appellant would come to Rs.6,41,000 [5,46,000+80,000+5,000+10,000]. In the light of the above observations and findings, this appeal is allowed, and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, on 02.02.2011 in O.P.(MV).No.975 of 2007 is modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.6,41,000/- (Rupees six lakhs forty-one thousand only) and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. _Sd/-_ **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **JUDGE** DG/23.9.23