Kerala High Court
Jayasreekumari vs Vineeth Kumar on 18 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
SATURDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2021/27TH AGRAHAYANA,
1943
MACA NO. 1448 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.02.2020 IN OPMV 316/2016 OF
AMOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JAYASREEKUMARI,
AGED 56 YEARS, KOMALIL VEEDU, CHERUTHANA P.O.,
CHERUTHANA -690 517.
2 ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR,
AGED 61 YEARS,
KOMALIL VEEDU, CHERUTHANA P.O.,
CHERUTHANA - 690 517.
3 ARUN A.
AGED 28 YEARS,
KOMALIL VEEDU, CHERUTHANA P.O.,
CHERUTHANA - 690 517.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
A.R.DILEEP
P.J.JOE PAUL
MANU SRINATH
RAJAN G. GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VINEETH KUMAR
VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KULATHOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 583.
2 JYOTHI CHALY,
T.C.26/302, KANDATHIL, PUNNAN ROAD, AGS POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A No.1448 of 2020 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
M.A.C.A No.1448 of 2020
================================
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are parents and elder brother of one Akhil,
who died in a motor accident occurred at Maliyeckal Junction on
04.08.2015 at about 2.15 p.m. While Akhil was travelling in a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 29J 2895 along with one
Ragesh Kumar through Kollam-Alappuzha national highway, a
tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KL 01BL 5947 driven by
the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 29J 2895, thereby both
Akhil and Ragesh Kumar, sustained grievous injuries, while
Akhil succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of deceased
Akhil approached the Tribunal and canvassed compensation to
the tune of Rs.35 lakh alleging negligence against the 1 st
respondent driver of the tanker lorry. Respondents 1 and 2 were
set exparte. The 3rd respondent insurance company disputed
negligence and quantum of compensation while admitting the
policy. The Tribunal tried 2 cases jointly, viz.,
O.P(MV).No.316/2016 and O.P(MV).No.317/2016. Thereafter
the Tribunal granted Rs.15,04,800/- as compensation to the
appellants in this case.
2. The appellants are dissatisfied in the matter of
quantum.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants confined his
argument mainly in the matter of fixation of monthly income at
Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal though the appellants adduced
evidence to prove that the deceased was a technically qualified
person to do the work of a Computer Hardware and Maintenance
Technician. According to the learned counsel for the appellants,
Ext.A12 produced along with Ext.A10 would go to show that
Akhil completed the above said course and passed Diploma
Course in the Computer Hardware and Maintenance from the
Government Polytechnic, Cherthala in second class and at the
time of accident, he was getting Rs.20,000/- as salary from SDS
IT Solutiona. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the Tribunal is not justified in fixing Rs.9,000/- alone
as the monthly income where the appellants adduced evidence to
substantiate the technical qualification of the deceased in a
satisfactory manner.
5. Refuting this argument, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the insurance company that Rs.20,000/- claimed by
producing Ext.A13 salary certificate, in fact, not proved in any
manner. That is the reason why the Tribunal negatived the said
contention at the instance of the appellants. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the insurance company opposed revision of
monthly income in excess of Rs.9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. I
have perused Ext.A10 certificate issued from Government
Polytechnic, Cherthala and Ext.A12 provisional certificate of
Diploma in Computer Hardware Maintenance of Akhil. Apart
from that, as per Ext.A9 the deceased obtained the certificate of
recognition in Entry Level Professional course in Hardware and
Networking from the Corona Institute of Technology and he was
employed in SDS IT Solutions as per Ext.A11 certificate.
6. It is true that the appellants not attempted to prove
Ext.A13 salary certificate by examining its author in a convincing
manner and therefore the Tribunal could not be faulted in the
matter of not considering Ext.A13 salary certificate.
7. In this context, it is relevant to note that, following the
ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance, if notional income is considered, the
same would come to Rs.9,500/-. In view of the matter, I have no
hesitation to hold that the monthly income fixed at Rs.9,000/- by
the Tribunal for calculating loss of dependency income is
insufficient and in this regard the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is having force. Having considered the
educational qualification as discussed, I am of the view that
Rs.12,000/- can be fixed as the monthly income for the purpose
of calculating the loss of dependency income. Needless to say
that 40% addition also to be made in this particular case
following the ratio in [(2017) 16 SCC 680], National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. considering the age of
the deceased below 40. No disputes raised as regards to the
multiplier fixed by the Tribunal or in relation to the deduction as
half considering the status of the deceased as a bachelor. In view
of the matter, dependency income is recalculated as under:
16800 X 12 X 18 X ½ = Rs.18,14,400/-, out of which
Rs.13,60,800/- was granted by the Tribunal. Therefore
Rs.4,53,600/- more is granted under the head loss of
dependency. No other challenge raised at the instance of the
appellants.
8. However, the learned counsel for the insurance
company submitted that following the ratio in [AIR 2020 SC
3076], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur,
Rs.15,000/- granted under the head pain and sufferings is
impermissible and the same required to be reduced. Therefore,
Rs.15,000/- is reduced.
9. Similarly, the learned counsel for the insurance
company is right in pointing out that the Tribunal granted
Rs.90,000/- under the head loss of consortium though Rs.80,000/-
alone is admissible considering the fact that the original
appellants 1 and 2, being parents, alone are entitled to get
parental consortium. This submission also is correct. In view of
the matter, Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of consortium
granted in excess is reduced.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. It is held
that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.4,28,600/- (Rupees Four
lakh twenty eight thousand six hundred only) as enhanced
compensation and the award impugned is modified as above with
the same rate of interest 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 appellants in the proportion fixed by the
Tribunal within two months from today and the appellants are at
liberty to realise the same, on deposit.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
