IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 1009 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.11.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.439/2009 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
V.DEEPA RANI,
AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O.LATE RATHEESH A.L.,
'DEEPANJALI',
MUKKOLACKAL,
NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.ANILA PETER
SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
SRI.CAESAR V PILLA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :
1 BIJU P.B.,
S/O.P.K.BHARATHAN,
KANNANMURI HOUSE, XLIV/,
ASOKA ROAD,
KALOOR,
COCHIN-682017
2 V.SUBRAMANIAN,
C/O.BIJU P.B.,
KANNANMURI HOUSE,
XLIV/2317, ASOKA ROAD,
KALOOR,
COCHIN-682017
MACA No.1009 of 2012
..2..
3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
4TH FLOOR,
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEM BUILDING,
SHANMUGHAM ROAD,
COCHIN-682031
BY ADV K.S.SANTHI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1009 of 2012
..3..
MACA No.1009 of 2012
--------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the wife of one Ratheesh is the appellant in this case. Respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The appellant impugns award dated 02.11.2011 in O.P.(MV)No.439 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The appellant claimed to be the sole legal heir and dependent of the deceased 'Ratheesh' lodged claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal and claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 to 3 on the allegation that the above said Ratheesh died in consequence of the MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..4..
accidental injuries contributed by R2.
4. R1 and R2 filed written statement and denied the allegation, while highlighting policy with R3.
5. R3 filed written statement disputing the accident and negligence, while admitting policy. Quantum also was disputed.
6. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter relying on Exts.A1 to A13 marked on the side of the appellant. No evidence adduced by the other side. Finally, Rs.5,47,500/- was granted with interest at 8% per annum.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on lower side. According to the learned counsel, the appellant claimed the income of late Ratheesh at Rs.11,025/- based on Ext.A11 appointment letter issued from Malayala Manorama Television Limited. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for increase in the monthly income and MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..5..
also consequential increase in the loss of dependency income and compensation under conventional heads.
8. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that though Ext.A11 would suggest an offer to the deceased with salary to the tune of Rs.11,025/-, no documents produced to substantiate that the above said Ratheesh was given the said salary or atleast he had joined for duty. Therefore, the amount as such cannot be considered in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer.
9. Since Ext.A11 shows salary Rs.11,025/-, I am of the view that Rs.8,000/- can be fixed as the monthly income in this case with 25% addition, since the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of the accident. Similarly, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as '15' is also incorrect and the proper multiplier is '14' as conceded by both sides applying the ratio in [2010 (2) KLT 802], MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..6..
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. Thus, the amount would come to Rs.8,000+25%=Rs.10,000/- Therefore, the loss of dependency income is re-calculated as under;
10,000x12x14x1/2=8,40,000/-
Out of which, Rs.4,80,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Rs.8,40,000-Rs.4,80,000= Rs.3,60,000/- more is granted under the head loss of dependency income.
10. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of estate. Rs.10,000/- more is granted under the loss of estate. Then, Rs.7,500/- more is granted under the head funeral expenses, since the Tribunal granted Rs.7,500/- alone. Towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- more is granted (since Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal). It is noted that Rs.25,000/- granted under the head loss of love and affection which is impermissible in view of the decision in MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..7..
[AIR 2020 SC 3076], United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur. Therefore, the said sum stands reduced.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.3,72,500/- (Rupees Three lakh Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today and on deposit, the appellant is at liberty to release the same.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj