Sulaiman and Khadeeja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others

``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 1 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26823` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2018 IN OPMV NO.1255 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:`** - **`1 SULAIMAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O LATE KUNHAMINA, KAYUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`2 KHADEEJA, AGED 57 YEARS D/O LATE KUNHAMINA,KOOMULLOOMKANDY HOUSE,P.O.KODUVALLY,KOZHIKODE.`** ## **`BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.2:`** - **`1 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD CALICUT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, KP 11/5061, MAIN ROAD, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O.KOZHIKODE 673 307`** ``` 2 ADDL. R2 PATHUMMA, W/O. AAYAMMAD KUTTY, KARIYAMBALATHIL HOUSE, KARUVAMPOYIL P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572. ``` - **`3 ADDL R3 SUBAIDA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. MOHAMMED, PILATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 572.`** ``` ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PR ORDER DATED 05/07/2022 IN I.A 1/2021 IN MACA 4076/2018. ``` ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 2 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26823 ``` ``` BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD C.JOSEPH JOHNY ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 3 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26823 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1255 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of Kunhamina, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 13.06.2015. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:- On 13.06.2015, at about 3.00 p.m., while Kunhamina, the deceased in this case, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-57-H-4841 from Thalaperumanna - Koduvally, ridden by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the motorcycle abruptly jumped over a hump and Kunhamina was thrown onto the road causing serious injuries on her. Immediately after the accident though the injured was taken to hospital, she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. 3. The owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle was arrayed as the 1[st] respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said motorcycle was arrayed as the 2[nd] respondent. The legal heirs of the deceased Kunhamina, who were not joined as petitioners were arrayed as 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents. ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 4 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26823 ``` 4. The 2[nd] respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. During trial, from the side of the Petitioners, Exts. A1 to A8 were marked. No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the respondents 5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-57-H-4841 by the 1st respondent and being the insurer, the 2[nd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified as Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, the petitioners have come up with this appeal. 6. I heard Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nabisan, the learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the compensation ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 5 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26823` awarded under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the the loss sustained by the bereaved family of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal declined to award any amount under the head of loss of dependency without assigning any convincing reason. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and warrants no interference. 8. While considering the the rival contentions, first of all, it is to be noted that the deceased in this case is a 74-year-old lady. The 1st petitioner is the son of the deceased. The 2[nd] petitioner and the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents are the daughters of the deceased. Undisputedly, all of them are the legal heirs of the deceased. While considering the question whether they are entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the fact that the deceased was a 74-year-old lady assumes significance. Notably, the petitioners failed to produce any materials to demonstrate that the deceased was an earning member of the family. Furthermore, the petitioners and the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents are major children of the deceased, aged over 50 years and are married as revealed from the records. The 2[nd] petitioner and the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents who are the daughters of the deceased were married and residing ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 6 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26823 ``` separately at different addresses. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the petitioners were dependent on the deceased either financially or otherwise. I am not oblivious of the fact that dependency does not necessarily mean financial dependency alone. However, at the case on hand, it is established that the petitioners as well 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents, who are the legal heirs of the deceased have independent existences and reside separately at different addresses. Therefore, I concur with the finding of the tribunal that none of the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 9. Reverting back to the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads, it is to be noted that under the head of loss of estate, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal. In view of the decision in **National Insurance Company** **Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662]** , the amount awarded by the tribunal under the said head requires no interference. However, a perusal of the award reveals that the tribunal omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of consortium. The petitioners as well as 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents, being the children of the deceased, all of them are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, the petitioners as well ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 7 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26823` the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents are together entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh Sixty Thousand only) (Rs.40,000/x 4) as compensation under the head of loss of consortium. As reasonable amount is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection is liable to be deducted. 10. Hence, an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh Sixty Thousand only) has to be added to and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) has to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 60,000/(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) (Rs.1,60,000/- – Rs.1,00,000/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, after deducting interest for a period of 73 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on 05.07.2022 in C.M.Appln.No.1/2018. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate ``` MACA NO. 4076 OF 2018 8 ``` **==> picture [63 x 63] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26823 ``` costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE** ANS