M.A.C.A.1219/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 1219 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 981/2002 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 LAILA,PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYATH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
2 KUNJUMON, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
3 RAMLATH, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
4 SHAHIDA, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
5 THAHA, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SANOJ KOSHY VARGHESE, S/O.KOSHY VARGHESE, V.S.BHAVAN,
ANCHAL PANCHAYATH WARD 7, NADIYANA P O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM
DISTRICT
2 RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.K.GOPALAN, LAL BHAVAN, AGATHYACODE,
ANCHAL P O, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
2
LTD., P B NO.17, PUNALOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1219 of 2022
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022
J U D G M E N T
1. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, in O.P(M.V.)No.981 of 2002 are the appellants in this appeal. They assail the order of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha dated 04.04.2008 in the said Original Petition, as per, which a total sum of Rs.2,21,600/- was awarded as compensation on account of the death of the son of the first petitioner/first appellant. The accident occurred in the year 2001, when the deceased was 20 years old.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants claimed enhancement on the following grounds. Firstly, learned counsel contended that monthly income of the deceased was reckoned at Rs.2,100/-. According to the appellants, deceased was a fish commission agent M.A.C.A.1219/2009 4 at the relevant time earning an income of Rs.7,500/- per month. In support of the same, Ext.A9 certificate was also produced, but the same was not proved by examining the person who issued it. At any rate, a sum of Rs.3,000/- is liable to be reckoned as against Rs.2,100/- taken by the Tribunal is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. This Court is of the opinion that the said submission of the learned counsel is reasonable and therefore, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.
3. The second contention is with respect to the multiplier applied. As against the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier as 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company also has no quarrel in this regard. Accordingly, the correct multiplier of 18 is to be applied. However, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the deduction to be effected is not one-third, but one-half, since the deceased, at the M.A.C.A.1219/2009 5 relevant time, was a bachelor. The said contention is also accepted.
4. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, no amount is reckoned towards future prospects. 40% of the income is liable to be reckoned towards future prospects. The said contention of the learned counsel is in tune with the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and hence, liable to be accepted.
5. A sum of Rs.5,000/- alone is given towards the funeral expenses and transportation. According to the learned counsel, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be given for funeral expenses alone, going by Pranay Sethi's case (supra). The said contention is liable to be accepted and therefore this Court award Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for transportation.
6. Another bone of contention is with respect to the consortium to be given to the mother/first M.A.C.A.1219/2009 6 appellant/first claimant. She is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium going by Pranay Sethi's case. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that, Rs.10,000/- given under the head loss on account of love and affection is not liable to be granted, since consortium and loss on account of love and affection cannot be granted simultaneously, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati [2020(9) SCC 644]. The said amount of Rs.10,000/- is therefore liable to be excluded.
7. Loss of estate is not reckoned by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.15,000/- as held in Pranay Sethi's case is liable to be awarded under that head. The last ground of contention of the learned counsel is with respect to the interest awarded @6% per annum. According to the learned counsel, in the year 2001, the interest is much more. This Court requested the learned counsel appearing on both sides to find out the interest prevailing in the year 2001. Both counsel, after M.A.C.A.1219/2009 7 necessary verification, submitted that the interest rate prevailing in the 2001 is 7%. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already deposited @6% interest as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court limits the rate of interest @7% only for the enhanced amount. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the amount liable to be compensated to the appellant is as shown below.
Sl. Head of Claim Amount Total amount after
No. awarded by enhancement in
the appeal
Tribunal
1 Transportation, carriage 5000 16,000 (15000+1000)
of dead body & funeral
expenses
2 Pain and suffering 5000
3 Loss of love & affection 10000 nil
4 Loss of dependency 201600 4,53,600
(3000+1200=4200,
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
8
4200x1/2-2100
2100x12=25200
25200x18)
5 Loss on consortium 40,000
6 Loss of estate 15,000
2,21,600 5,24,600
Amount enhanced =Rs.5,24,600/- - Rs.2,21,600/-= Rs.3,03,000/
8. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 7% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 171 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 17.11.2021 in C.M.A.No.1/2009 in this appeal. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months M.A.C.A.1219/2009 9 from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Sbna/