Kerala High Court
S.B.Radhakrishnan vs A.Ramaprabhakaran on 4 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 3927 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.06.2017 IN OPMV NO.1279 OF 2015 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MAHALINGAPURAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,IFFCO BHAVAN,
THOTTAKKAT ROAD, KOCHI - 11.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:
1 MR. S.B. RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, SRAKOLITHUNDI HOUSE, VENNALA P.O, KOCHI - 682
028.
2 MRS.ASHA
W/O. S.B RADHAKRISHNAN, SRAKOLITHUNDI HOUSE, VENNALA P.O, KOCHI -
682 028.
3 MISS. RESHMA
D/O. S.B RADHAKRISHNAN, SRAKOLITHUNDI HOUSE, VENNALA P.O, KOCHI -
682 028.
BY ADV SRI.K.V.RAJAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.439/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 439 OF 2018
UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
AWARD DATED 30.6.2017 IN OPMV NO.1279 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 S.B.RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 50 YEARS
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, SRAKOLITHUNDI HOUSE,VENNALA
P.O, KOCHI 682 028
2 MRS. ASHA
AGED 48 YEARS,W/O. S.B RADHAKRISHNAN, SRAKOLITHUNDI HOUSE,VENNALA
P.O, KOCHI 682 028
3 RESHMA
AGED 26 YEARS,D/O. S.B RADHAKRISHNAN, SRAKOLITHUNDI HOUSE,VENNALA
P.O, KOCHI 682 028
BY ADV SRI.K.V.RAJAN
3
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 A.RAMAPRABHAKARAN
S/O. NARAYANAN, 40/24-ATTUPURA COLONY,AZHIYUR, POLLACHI,
TAMIL NADU 622 104
2 IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
NO-16-VENKATARAMANA ROUND ROAD,MAHALINGAPURAM, POLLACHI,
TAMIL NADU 642 002
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.06.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.3927/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
==================================
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018
===================================
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2024 These appeals are directed against the award in OP (MV) No. 1279 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. M.A.C.A No. 3927 of 2017 is filed by the 2nd respondent insurer, contending that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in nature, and M.A.C.A. No. 439 of 2018 is filed by the claimants contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate.
2. Sri. Rahul Radhakrishnan, son of appellants 1 and 2, and brother of the 3rd appellant, died in a road traffic accident which 5 M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018 occurred on 15.11.2014, while he was riding a motorcycle through Valparai - Pollachi main road. TN 41 AK 3661 motorcycle ridden by the 1st respondent dashed against his motorcycle, and he sustained fatal injuries. He died at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, on 16.11.2014. He was a 22-year-old B.Com, student, having good prospects in future, and he could have earned monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The appellants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.27 lakh. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.16,25,000/-. According to the insurer, it is on the higher side, and the appellants would say it is not the just compensation.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner cum rider of the offending motorcycle, and the 2nd respondent was its insurer. The 2nd respondent admitted the accident, as well as the policy of the offending motorcycle.
4. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court.
6M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018
5. Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in almost all heads are excessive in nature. Learned Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased @ Rs.7,500/- per month, though the deceased was a B.Com student, and was not earning any income. But we cannot keep a blind eye against the future prospects of a 22-year-old B.Com student. If he was alive, he could have earned even more than that. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in MACA No. 439 of 2018, would place reliance on the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], to say that even a coolie worker was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.9,,500/- in the year 2014. Based on that decision, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.9,500/-. Based on the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40% addition could have been given towards future prospects. So his income 7 M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018 could have been taken as Rs.13,300/- (9,500 + 40%). Since he was a bachelor, 50% was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, the balance income will be Rs.6,650/-. The multiplier applicable was 18. So the compensation for loss of dependency could be assessed as Rs.14,36,400/- (6,650 x 12 x 18). After deducting Rs.12,15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants (appellants in MACA No. 439 of 2018) will get Rs.2,21,400/- as enhanced compensation under that head.
6. Learned counsel for the insurer (appellant in MACA No. 3927 of 2017) would contend that learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards damage to clothing which is on the higher side. This Court is of the view that Rs.500/- towards damage to clothing is reasonable, and so Rs.4,500/- awarded by the Tribunal in excess, is liable to be deducted.
7. The insurer is disputing the treatment expenses, awarded by the Tribunal i.e, Rs.20,000/-, though no bills were produced by the claimants to prove the expenses. It has come out in evidence that, 8 M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018 after the accident on 15.11.2014, the injured was taken to Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, and he breathed his last, on the next day while undergoing treatment in that hospital. So this Court is of the view that Rs.5,000/- towards treatment expenses is reasonable, even in the absence of any documents in support. So, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be deducted from the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head treatment expenses.
8. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-, and that is against the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the decision Pranay Sethi's case cited supra. So, Rs.10,000/- is liable to be deducted from the funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/-. This being a death case, the legal heirs of the deceased were not eligible to get any compensation for pain and suffering as that claim was personal in nature. So Rs.60,000/- 9 M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018 awarded under the head pain and suffering also is liable to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Towards loss of love and affection, the parents of the deceased was eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each amounting to Rs.80,000/- in total. But learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,40,000/-. So Rs.1,60,000/- is liable to be deducted under that head as it is in excess.
11. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- in spite of their eligibility to get only Rs.15,000/-. based on Pranay Sethi's case cited supra. So Rs.35,000/- is liable to be deducted under the head loss of estate.
12. The compensation awarded under transportation expenses seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no modification.
13. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is given in the table below:-
10
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018 Head of claim Amount Amount Amount Difference to be awarded by awarded in deducted in drawn as the Tribunal appeal appeal enhanced compensation Loss of 12,15,000/- 14,36,400/- ...... 2,21,400/-
dependency
Damage to 5,000/- 500/- 4,500/-
clothing
Treatment 20,000/- 5,000/- 15,000/-
expense
Funeral expense 25,000/- 15,000/- 10,000/-
Pain and 60,000/- ....... 60,000/- ........
suffering
Love and 2,40,000/- 80,000/- 1,60,000/-
affection
15,000/-
Loss of estate 50,000/- 35,000/-
2,84,500/- 2,21,400/-
Total
11
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018
14. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants in MACA No. 439 of 2018 are eligible to get enhancement of Rs.2,21,400/- whereas they are liable to refund Rs.2,84,500/- which was awarded, in excess of what was eligible to them. So the insurer can deduct the difference of Rs.63,100/-, from the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Learned counsel for the insurer (appellant in MACA No. 3927 of 2017) submitted that out of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer already deposited Rs.15,00,000/-. Since we have found that the claimants (appellants in MACA No. 439 of 2018) are liable to refund Rs.63,100/- from the total award amount, the insurer is entitled to deduct that amount from the principal amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and they need only deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal with interest and costs after adjusting the deposit already made, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to claimants 1 to 3 12 M.A.C.A. Nos. 3927 of 2017 & 439 of 2018 (appellants in MACA No. 439 of 2018) in the ratio 45:45:10, after deducting the liabilities, if any, towards Tax, balance court fee, and legal benefit fund.
The appeals stand allowed in part, to the extent as above, and no order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE RMV