Kerala High Court
Molamma vs The Manager on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.1957 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.07.2013 IN OPMV 731/2010 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:
1 MOLAMMA
W/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM
KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
2 SOUMYA @ SHAILAJA
D/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM
P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3 REMYA THANKAPPAN
D/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM
KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.4 AND PETITIONERS 4 AND 5:
1 THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, J.J
ARCADE, DESHABHIMANI JUNCTION, N.H ROAD, KALOOR 682
017.
2 KUNJAMMA
W/O.PUSHKARAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM
KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT. PIN-686506
3 PUSHKARAN
S/O.PARAMU, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM
KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT. PIN-686506.
M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 2
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 1957 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV)
No.731/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Pala. It is a claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased
Thankappan who died in a motor vehicle accident. The above
claim petition was disposed of along with O.P.(MV) No.1042/10.
(Hereinafter, the parties are mentioned in accordance to their
rank before the Tribunal).
2. The facts are like this: On 23.7.2010, at 7.30 p.m.,
the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1042/2010 was riding a motor
cycle bearing registration No.KL-5/G-3336 through
Kanjirappally-Manimala public road. The deceased Thankappan
was a pillion rider of the motorcycle. When the motorcycle
reached at a place Mannanplavu, a goods autorikshaw bearing
registration No.KL-11 U-4693 driven by the first respondent
came in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle in
which Thankappan and the petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.1042/2010 travelled. As a result of it, both of them fell
down. Thankappan sustained serious injuries and he
succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners, the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent
who was driving the goods autorikshaw. The third respondent
is the R.C owner and the fourth respondent is the insurer of
the autorikshaw.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked
on the side of the petitioners. One witness was examined on
the side of the petitioners as PW1. After going through the
evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that the
petitioners are entitled a total compensation of Rs.7,50,250/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
application till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard the counsel for the appellants/petitioners and
the standing counsel for the insurance company.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.5,000/-. According to the counsel, the deceased was a
worker in a poultry farm. He was getting an amount of
Rs.9,000/- per month. But no evidence was adduced by the
petitioners to prove the same. It is true that Ext.A9 was
produced before the trial court. But the same is not proved in a
manner known to law. In such circumstances, such a
document cannot be accepted. But the fact remains that even
a coolie will get more than Rs.5,000/- in the year 2010. If the
principle in the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa
v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,
(2011 (13) SCC 236) is taken into consideration, a collie will
get at least Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. If that is taken as the
basis, this Court can safely fix the monthly income of the
petitioner as Rs.7,500/-. Then the question is about the
multiplier which is applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the case. The Tribunal accepted the age of the petitioner in
Exts.A3 and A4, which are the postmortem certificate and
inquest report. In those documents, the age of the deceased
is shown as 55 years and 52 years respectively. But Ext.A8 is
the electoral identity card issued to the deceased. From this, it
is clear that as on 1.1.2005, the age of the deceased was 43.
Then the age of the deceased will be 48 years at the time of
the accident. Therefore, the age of the deceased can be
accepted as 48 in the light of the entry in Ext.A8 electoral
identity card. If that is the age of the deceased, the multiplier
that is applicable is 13. The Tribunal taken the multiplier 11
instead of 13. Moreover the monthly income of the deceased
now fixed by this Court is Rs.7,500/-. Future prospects is to be
added to the said amount. Taking the age of the deceased as
48, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. Then the
amount will be Rs.1,875/-. (Rs.7,500x25/100). Then the
monthly income will be Rs.9,375/-(Rs.7,500+1,875). Then the
dependency compensation is to be reassessed in the following
manner:
Rs.9,375x12x13x3/4= Rs.10,96,875/-. The Tribunal awarded
an amount of Rs.5,69,250/- which is to be deducted from the
above amount. Then the balance amount will be Rs.5,27,625/-
(Rs.10,96,875- Rs.5,69,250).
6. Even though, the counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- for
loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses which is slightly in excess in the light
of the principle laid by the Apex Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC) . Therefore,
no interference is necessary for the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and also for loss of
estate. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are the wife, two children and parents of the
deceased. They are entitled loss of consortium at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- each in the light of the decision of the Apex Court
in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram (2018 (18) SCC 130). There is some force in the
above argument. The petitioners are entitled compensation for
loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Then the
amount will be Rs.2,00,000/-. (Rs.40,000x5). The Tribunal
already awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.10,00/- towards loss
of love and affection. That amount is to be deducted. Then the
balance amount will be Rs.90,000/- (Rs.2,00,000-
Rs.1,10,000). Therefore, the enhanced amount entitled by the
petitioners can be summarised like this:
1. Loss of dependency - Rs. 5,27,625/-
2. Loss of consortium - Rs.90,000/-
------------
Total - Rs.6,17,625/-.
=======
7. The petitioners are entitled interest at the rate of
7.5% p.a from the date of petition till realisation. The counsel
for the insurance company submitted that the appeal was filed
with a delay of 259 days and as per order dated 15.10.2020,
in this appeal, the petitioners are not entitled interest for a
period of 259 days. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled
interest for the enhanced amount for a period of 259 days.
Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned
order is modified. The appellants/petitioners are entitled an
enhanced compensation of Rs.6,17,625/- (Rupees Six lakh
Seventeen Thousand Six hundred and twenty five only) with
interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of application till
realisation. The petitioners are not entitled interest for a
period of 259 days for the enhanced compensation.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
al/-+
