The Branch Manager, New India Assurance ... vs Raju Lal M.J

Kerala High Court

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance ... vs Raju Lal M.J on 20 May, 2024

Author: Mary Joseph

Bench: Mary Joseph

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT

                      THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

              MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946

                                MACA NO. 3163 OF 2015

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.03.2015 IN O.P(MV) NO.620 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS

                            CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P(M.V):

             THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY,
             DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, HIGH LANE PLAZA, M.G.ROAD,
             KASARAGOD-671 121,
             REPRESENTED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
             R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, (MANAGER), REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY
             TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 011.\

             BY ADV.
                DINESH MATHEW J MURIKAN


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 IN O.P(M.V):

     1       RAJU LAL M.J.,
             AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, VINEETHA BHAVAN, BELA,
             BELA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN-671 321.

     2       BALAKRISHNAN K.V.,
             AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.K.V.KOTTAN, KUNNUMMAL VEEDU, LAXI NAGAR,
             HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 312.

     3       MANAGING DIRECTOR,
             KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EAST FORT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

             BY ADVS.
                 SHABU SREEDHARAN
                 SIDHARTHAN V.K.
                 S.SIVACHALAM
                 HARIDAS A.R.
                 ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

      THIS   MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   APPEAL    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   HEARING   ON

20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO.3163/2015

                                      2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024.

This appeal is originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod on 21.03.2015 in O.P(M.V) No.620 of 2011. The appellant is the 3 rd respondent in the above Original Petition filed before the Tribunal and was the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. Challenge was raised mainly against the monthly income adopted for computing compensation for permanent disability. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was aged 53 years at the relevant time of the motor accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the monthly income, he was getting from his profession as an Aided School teacher for the purpose of computation of compensation for disability. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner MACA NO.3163/2015 3 being aged 53 years would undoubtedly retire at the age of 56 years. Therefore, he won't get the very same monthly income after retirement and that factum was omitted to be considered by the Tribunal while calculating compensation.

3. This Court has gone through the impugned award and found that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income in consideration of personal expenditure of the petitioner. The case on hand being not one filed seeking compensation in a death case, the Tribunal has gone wrong in deducting 1/3rd .from the monthly income in consideration of personal expenditure. The compensation was sought in a case where personal injuries have been sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal is erred in deducting 1/3 rd from the monthly income towards personal expenditure.

4. Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the petitioner as `30,060/-, which stands proved by Ext.A7 salary certificate, for the purpose of computation of compensation for MACA NO.3163/2015 4 permanent disability. The Tribunal had taken the salary as such and the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased then, for calculating the compensation for disability. According to him, since the petitioner was due for retirement after three years from the date of the motor accident, the Tribunal ought not to have done so. Rather, it would have opted the split multiplier method. The learned counsel has rested his contention on Kumaran v. Roy Mathew [2017 (1) KLT 668] where a Division Bench of this Court has held that considerable reduction in the income, which would definitely fall in the life of the deceased after attaining superannuation if he/she would have been alive, is a factor which may have been taken note of by the Tribunal.

"The considerable reduction in the income, which would definitely fall in the life of the deceased after attaining superannuation if he/she would have been alive, is a factor which may be taken note of by the Tribunal. Such specific reason for adopting a different multiplicand for different periods, specifically split up from the entire MACA NO.3163/2015 5 period of multiplier, is based on reasons available in the evidence on record. Application of split multiplier in such cases with different rates of multiplicand is not illegal or erroneous, nor it run against the dictum contained in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above.

The Apex Court discouraged the application of split multiplier method in Puttamma and Others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another [2014 (1) KLT 738 (SC)]. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in that regard is discarded.

5. The learned counsel has relied on Raju Sebastian Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (5) KHC 662], wherein a Single Bench of this Court while dealing with the probable monthly income of a person with educational qualification and experience, after his retirement from a government institution, held that it would be 50% of the income of the person concerned, while he was in service unless there are valid reasons to adopt another method. The case on hand is MACA NO.3163/2015 6 one in which the injured was aged 53 years at the relevant time of the motor accident and it is a matter of confirmity that he would retire at the age of 56 years. Therefore, this Court also finds it appropriate to take 50% of the monthly salary earned by the petitioner at the time when he met with the motor accident. The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure considered by the Tribunal being wrong is set aside and this Court is inclined to calculate compensation for permanent disability by adopting `15,030/-, being 50% of `30,060/-, the salary earned by the petitioner.

6. When compensation for permanent disability is calculated afresh based on the modified monthly income, the petitioner will get only `8,92,782/- (`15,030/- x 12 x 11 x 45/100) (Rupees Eight lakh ninety two thousand seven hundred and eighty two only) as compensation towards permanent disability instead of `11,89,188/- stood awarded by the Tribunal.

7

In the result, appeal on hand is allowed and the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under the head permanent disability is modified as above. Challenge having not been raised against compensation stood awarded under other heads, those are maintained.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ