Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Reliance General Insurance ... on 14 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942
MACA.No.2188 OF 2017(C)
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.320/2011 DATED 14-03-2017 OF
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.TRIBUNAL - III, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-
CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,KOCHI-682 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JALAJAKUMRI
AGED 40, W/O.LATE REJEESH KUMAR,
PUNARTHAM NIVAS, VETTAYKAL P.O.,
CHERTHALA, PIN-688 587.
2 HARIKRISHNAN (MINOR)
AGED 17, S/O.LATE REJEESH KUMAR,
PUNARTHAM NIVAS, VETTAYKAL P.O.,
CHERTHALA, PIN-688 587.
3 HARIPRIYA (MINOR)
AGED 12, D/O.LATE REJEESH KUMAR,
PUNARTHAM NIVAS, VETTAYKAL P.O.,
CHERTHALA, PIN-688 587.
4 THANKAPPAN
AGED 71, PUNARTHAM NIVAS, VETTAYKAL P.O.,
CHERTHALA, PIN-688 587.
[MINOR RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT]]
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.2188/2017 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of January 2021
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company which
is the third respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.320 of 2011 on the file of
the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Alappuzha.
The challenge raised in this appeal is as to the quantum of
compensation awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants.
2. The deceased Rejeesh Kumar involved in the motor
accident, left behind four legal heirs, who are his wife, two minor
children and father. The deceased was aged 41 years at the
time of the accident. He was a saw mill worker allegedly earning
monthly salary of Rs.9,000/-. The Tribunal while fixing the
amount of dependency, accepted Exhibit A10 income certificate
issued from the Village Office which mentioned the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. Towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, 1/4th was deducted following
the guidelines in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[(2009) 6 SCC 121].
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the approach made by the learned Tribunal is wrong inasmuch
as the income of the deceased was only below Rs.9,000/- and
further, the fourth claimant, the father, aged 65 years, was not a
dependant of the deceased.
4. I am not persuaded by the arguments addressed by
the learned counsel for the appellant. It is clear evidence from
the income certificate issued from the Village Office as well as
the employer examined as PW1 that the deceased was drawing
monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. The oral evidence as to the
income given by the witness was accepted by the Tribunal and
in my opinion, there is no reason to take a different view. A
decision reported in Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2014) 2
SCC 735)] and cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in
this respect is distinguishable on facts.
5. The fourth claimant, being aged, the normal
presumption is that he was also one of the dependants of the
deceased. Therefore, ¼th deduction made by the Tribunal is
legal. In that event, quantification of loss of dependency made
by the Tribunal has to be accepted as such without any variation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant correctly
pointed out that excessive amounts have been awarded under
the heads of funeral expenses and compensation for
consortium. The funeral expenses have therefore to be reduced
from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- following the guidelines in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. There is duplication of award for
compensation for consortium and again for loss of love and
affection. Only one of them could have been allowed and
following the guidelines in Pranay Sethi's case, each of the
dependant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- and thus under the head of
loss of consortium, a total amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded to
the claimants.
7. I find that there is absolutely no basis for the Tribunal
for having awarded compensation for loss of expectation of life
which is not impermissible in death cases. The litigation cost of
Rs.25,000/- awarded as an item of compensation is untenable
and is hence rejected.
8. The appellant's counsel, relying on United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
and others [2020 (3) KHC 760], submits that no amount under
the head of pain and suffering ought to have been awarded in
death cases. The argument merits acceptance and therefore,
the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded under that head is rejected.
However, I notice that the Tribunal failed to award any amount
towards loss of estate and therefore, I award Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate following the principles in Pranay Sethi's
case. In all other aspects, the heads of compensation awarded
appear to be reasonable requiring no modification.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the
interest may be reduced from 9% to 8%. However, it does not
merit any acceptance since as per the Banking practice
prevailing on the date of award, 9% interest awarded appears to
be reasonable.
10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as per the table below :
Sl.No. Head of claim Amount
awarded (Rs.)
1 Transportation expenses 3,000/-
2 Damage to clothing 2,000/-
3 Cost of medicine 5,000/-
4 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
5 Ambulance charges 2,000/-
6 Pain and suffering nil
7 Compensation for consortium 1,60,000/-
8 Compensation for loss of dependency 14,74,200/-
9 Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 16,76,200/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying and reducing
the amount of impugned award from Rs.19,66,200/- to
Rs.16,76,200/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand
and Two Hundred only) with 9% interest per annum from the
date of Original Petition till realisation. The appellant Company
shall satisfy the award within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellant
will suffer costs in the appeal.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
csl
