Kerala High Court
Thechiyodan Marakkar vs Suneer M.C on 3 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 3
DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946
MACA NO. 4097 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.08.2015 IN OPMV NO.251 OF 2011 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1
THECHIYODAN MARAKKAR,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, CHEMBRASSERI EAST.P.O.,
CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2
NASEERA,
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.THECHIYODAN MARAKKAR, CHEMBRASSERI
EAST.P.O., CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUNEER M.C., S/O.SAIDALAVI MANNANGACHALIL, MANNANGACHALIL HOUSE, KARAKUNNU.P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 123. 2 ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, 24/284(694), KODAVANDI HOUSE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI COLLEGE.P.O., MANJERI AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121. MACA 4097/16 2 3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., JASEELA COMPLEX, BYPASS JUNCTION, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121. BY ADV C.T.BASHEER FOR R1 AND R2 BY ADV.SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HIS T MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 4097/16 3 J U D G M E N T This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in OP(MV)No.251 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. On 30.10.2010 at 5.10 p.m. while Mr.Muhammed Jarshath was riding his motorcycle through Manjeri - Chembrasseri Road, KL-10/P-1001 bus driven by the 1st respondent,inarashandnegligentmanner,knockedhimdown andhesustainedfatalinjuriestowhichhesuccumbedafter53 days. He was a 20 year old man doing furniture business earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. His parents approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. Though learned Tribunal awarded Rs.13,01,500/-,accordingtotheappellants,itwasnotthejust compensation to be awarded, and hence this appeal. 3. The 3rd respondent-Insurer admitted the accident as well as the Policy. According to them, the compensation MACA 4097/16 4 awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and hence it needs no modification. 4. Now this Court iscalledupontoanswerwhetherthere is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award, warranting interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer. True that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was exceeding their claim. But if it is for awarding just compensation,theTribunal or even the appellatecourtcanawardamountevenexceeding the claim. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the deceased was a businessman earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, learned Tribunal fixed his notional income@Rs.5,000/-only.Nodocumentswereproducedbythe appellants to prove the occupationorincomeofthedeceased. So learned Tribunal could not be found fault with for not MACA 4097/16 5 accepting Rs.15,000/- as the income of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], to say that intheyear2010evenacoolieworkerwas eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.7,500/-. Accepting that argument, this Court is inclined to fix his notionalincome@Rs.7,500/-.Sincehewasbelow40andwas self employed, 40% addition could have been given towards future prospects and if so, his income can be fixed @ Rs.10,500/-(7,500+40%).Sincehewasabachelor,50%was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the balance will be Rs.5,250/-. The multiplier applicable is 18. So the loss of dependency could be assessed as Rs.11,34,000/- (5,250x12x18).AfterdeductingRs.8,10,000/-alreadyawarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.3,24,000/- as enhanced compensationunderthehead'loss of dependency'. MACA 4097/16 6 9. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Based on the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So, they will get the difference of Rs.5,000/- as enhanced compensation under the head 'loss of estate'. 10. Towards loss of love and affection, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi's case cited supra,theappellants,whoaretheparentsofthedeceased,are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each, which will come to Rs.80,000/- in total. So, there is an excess amount of Rs.20,000/-awardedbytheTribunalunderthathead,andthat amount is liable to be deducted. 11. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, they are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- only and hence Rs.10,000/- is in excess, and that has to be deducted. MACA 4097/16 7 12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads seems to be reasonable and hence it needs no modification. Head of claim Amount Amount Amounts ifference to D warded by a awarded in deducted in be drawn as the Tribunal appeal appeal enhanced compensation oss of L dependency Rs.8,10,000/- Rs.11,34,000/- Rs.3,24,000/- Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/- oss of love and L affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.80,000/- Rs.20,000/- uneral F Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- expenses Total Rs.30,000/- Rs.3,29,000/- Enhanced compensation is Rs.2,99,000/-(3,29,000 -30,000) 13. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhancement of Rs.3,29,000/-, whereas Rs.30,000/- is liable to be deducted as it is in excess. So, the balance entitled as enhanced compensation is Rs.2,99,000/-. 14. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit Rs.2,99,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand only) MACA 4097/16 8 with 9% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, (excluding 392 days of delay in filing the appeal), before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellants, in equal share, after deducting the liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. Theappealisallowedtotheextentasaboveandnoorder is made as to costs. Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/-