Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Kochuthresya @ Blessy, Shalbin and Shijiya (Minor) through her mother

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/18TH MAGHA, 1938** **MACA.No. 3630 of 2016 -------------------------** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 427/2013 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 14.3.2016** ## **APPELLANT/3rd respondent:** **---------------------------** **SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED JAIPUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER, AZAD TOWER, AMMANCOIL CROSS ROAD, KOCHI 35.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** **--------------------------** **1. KOCHUTHRESYA @ BLESSY W/O.SHALU, PANJIKARAN HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, ALUVA PO, 683 101.** **2. SHALBIN, S/O.SHALU, PANJIKARAN HOUSE PALLIKUNNU, ALUVA PO 683 101.** **3. SHIJIYA (MINOR) D/O.SHALU, NOW REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT, PANJIKARAN HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, ALUVA PO, 683 101.** **R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V.,JJ.** ## **==============================** ## **M.A.C.A. No. 3630 of 2016** ## **==============================** ## **Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Shircy V., J.** The 3[rd] respondent in O.P.(MV) No. 427/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor has come up with this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 26.3.2013 at 4.30 p.m. while the deceased was driving a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-41/B-7351 through Irinjalakuda-Chalakudy Road, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-14/A-3447 driven by the 2[nd] respondent hit against the vehicle driven by the deceased causing very serious injuries to him. Even though he was rushed to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. The legal heirs of the MACA 3630/2016 2 deceased are the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 herein. 3. The accident as well as the insurance policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. So also the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent is not under challenge. The grievance of the appellant/Insurance Company is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that exorbitant amount was awarded as compensation. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. 5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a driver by profession. Even though it was alleged that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.25000/-,no proof was produced to substantiate the claim. Hence the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as MACA 3630/2016 3 Rs.9000/- per month. So loss of dependency was calculated taking into consideration of the income as Rs.9000/-. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal went wrong in awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) each as compensation for love and affection to the respondents herein. According to him, as per the settled proposition of law , they are entitled to get in total an amount of Rs. one lakh only under that head. The legal heirs/respondents are the wife and two minor children of the deceased. The deceased at the time of his death was aged only 45 years. His two children were minors at the time of his death. His wife was aged only 38 years. In **Jyni and Others v. Raphel P.T. and Others (2016(2)KHC 870)** this Court has observed that in **Jiju Kuruvilla v. Kunjuujamma Mohan, (2013 KHC 4486)** the Apex Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that the minor children of the deceased are entitled to Rs. one lakh each towards loss of love and affection, as MACA 3630/2016 4 Rs.one lakh each was granted to the dependents of the deceased invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Here, in fact a jobless wife and minor children had lost their husband and father, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. Considering the special circumstances involved in this case and taking into consideration of the judicial pronouncements in various cases by the Apex Court, especially the principle laid down in **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013(3)KHC 212 ,** we think that it is just and reasonable to reduce the amount of Rs. one lakh each awarded under the head of loss of love and affection as Rs.1,50,000/- in total and thus to modify the award . We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under any other heads. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the amount under the head of loss of love and affection in total as Rs.1,50,000/- The appellant/Insurance company MACA 3630/2016 5 shall deposit only the modified amount with 9 % interest from the date of petition till realisation. Compensation amount shall be apportioned among the legal heirs of the deceased as ordered by the Tribunal in the award. **Sd/-** **C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE** **Sd/-** **SHIRCY V. JUDGE** **ks.** True copy P.s. To Judge MACA 3630/2016 6 MACA 3630/2016 7