Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Jojy P. Jose on 14 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
MACA NO. 1862 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.01.2017 IN OPMV 1176/2014 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KOCHI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI - 682 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR
RESPONDENT : PETITIONER
JOJY P. JOSE, PADINJAREMURIYI HOUSE, VADAKUPURAM P.O,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN - 689 641.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON 14.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017 :2:
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017
================================
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed on 23.01.2017 by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-IV, Pathanamthitta in O.P (MV) No.1176 of 2014, the appellant,
who is the 3rd respondent in the Original Petition, has approached this Court by
arraying the petitioners and other respondents therein as the respondents herein.
2. The brief facts of the case :
The petitioner was a pillion rider in a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KL-03-V-1109, which was going from Malayalappuzha to
Kumbazha. On 20.06.2014 at about 11.30 a.m when the motorcycle reached at a
place near Kaleekalpady junction, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-03--W-
5367 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle
in which the pillion rider was travelling. The accident happened due to the rash
and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The second respondent is the owner of
the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. The 2 nd respondent is
vicariously liable for the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and the 3rd
M.A.C.A No.1862 of 2017
respondent is liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The respondents are therefore
jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant pointed out
one anomaly in the award of the Tribunal by relying on the decisions rendered by
the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Company Ltd. [AIR 2014 SC 1052 : (2014) 2 SCC 735]. He
submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in adding 50% income to the monthly
income while calculating the disability income and therefore, the amount ought to
have been granted is Rs.86,400/- instead of Rs.1,29,600/-.
4. Though in the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104] the Honourable Supreme
Court has given guidelines regarding the grant of compensation in cases of death,
nothing considered in the above verdict as regards to grant of additional 50% while
assessing disability income. In view of the matter, the argument advanced by the
learned Insurance Company is found to be tenable. Thus the disability income
calculated by the Tribunal as Rs.1,29,600/- is incorrect and it would come to only
Rs.86,400/-, i.e, (9000X12X5X16/100).
Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,42,572/- is reduced
to Rs.1,47,050/- (Rupees One lakh forty seven thousand and fifty only) and hence
modified award is passed limiting the compensation to Rs.1,47,050/-(Rupees One
lakh forty seven thousand and fifty only). The interest granted by the court below
as such is confirmed. All other directions issued by the Tribunal will be in force.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
