Kerala High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Lali Abraham on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 620/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL , MANJERI
APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANJERI BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, PALLIKKAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KOZHIKODE ROAD, P.O, MANJERI, PIN 676121, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BLDG, MG. ROAD,
KOCHI 682035.
BY ADV P.G.GANAPPAN
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS
1 LALI ABRAHAM,
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.ABRAHAM P (DECEASED) PULIMOOTTIL (H), CHERUKARA PO,
ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN
679328.
2 LAYA ABRAHAM
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM.P., PULIMOOTTIL (H),
CHERUKARA, P.O.ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN - 679 328.
3 LEYON ABRAHAM
AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM P., PULIMOOTTIL (H),
CHERUKARA, P.O.ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPUAM
DIST., PIN - 679 328.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.M.ANUROOP
SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant - insurance company was the 3 rd
respondent in O.P (MV) No.620/2015 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The
respondents in the appeal were the claimants before
the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of
convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim
petition.
2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation on account of the death of
Abraham (deceased). According to the petitioners, on
11.3.2015 while the deceased was riding his motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KL-53/E-822 from Perinthalmanna to
Alumkoottam, another motorcycle driven by the 1st
respondent bearing Reg.No.KL-55/K-8598 (offending
vehicle) hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted to
the hospital. However, on 18.3.2015 the deceased lost
his life. The 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle
was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the
3rd respondent. The petitioners were the dependents of
the deceased, who was a plumber by profession and
was aged 53 years. The deceased earned a monthly
income of Rs.18,000/-. The petitioners claimed a total
compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- from the respondents.
3. The 2nd respondent did not contest the
proceedings and was set ex parte.
4. The 1st respondent filed a written statement
refuting the allegations in the claim petition. It was
contended that the accident occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent.
5. The 3rd respondent - insurance company filed a
written statement admitting that the offending vehicle
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
had a valid insurance coverage. It was further averred
that the accident did not occur due to the negligence on
the part of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent
denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1
to A12 in evidence. The respondents did not adduce any
evidence.
7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings
and materials on record, came to the conclusion that the
petitioners are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.20,76,000/- from the respondents. The 3 rd
respondent was directed to pay the compensation
amount.
8. The sole ground that has been raised in the
memorandum of appeal is that the notional income of
the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
9. Ext.A6-charge-sheet filed by the Police after
investigation substantiates that the accident occurred
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
solely on account of the negligence of the 2 nd
respondent, who drove the offending vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner. Admittedly, the 1 st respondent
was the owner and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of
the offending vehicle. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent is
liable to indemnify the 1st respondent of his liability to
pay the compensation amount.
10. The petitioners had averred that the deceased
was aged 53 years on the date of accident and was a
plumber by profession. They produced Exts.A10 to A12
documents to prove the employment and income of the
deceased. Ext.A10 certificate proves that the deceased
was a licensed plumber . Ext.A11 is the certificate
issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Kerala Water
Authority, Perinthalmanna, which substantiates that the
deceased had provided 184 connections during the
period from 1.4.2014 to 11.3.2015. Ext.A12 is the
technical circular issued by the Managing Director of
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
the Kerala Water Authority which gives the rate
provided to plumbers for providing domestic water
connections.
11. The Tribunal, after appreciating Ext.A10 to
A12, arrived at the conclusion that the deceased had an
income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., Rs.550/- per
day.
12. The appellant had not let in any contra-
evidence to discredit Exts.A10 to A12 certificates.,
which were marked in evidence with the consent of the
respondents.
13 The fact finding exercise carried out by the
Tribunal after accepting Exts.A10 to A12 certificates
cannot be found fault, or said to be on the higher side,
especially since the deceased was a skilled worker.
15. It is trite law that, the Tribunals are permitted
to the do some guess work and exercise its discretition
in fixing the reasonable and just compensation for which
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
there cannot be any straitjacket formula based on
mathematical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has
judicially exercised its powers based on the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act, the pleadings and materials
on record.
15. Similarly, the Tribunal has fixed the other
heads of compensation following the ratio of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Sarala
Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT
802 (SC)].
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Insurance
Company Ltd v. Kiran Singh & Ors [2004 (AIR) SCW
4212] has deprecated the practice of insurance
companies contesting genuine claims in a routine
manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting
enormous time and money. It is also observed that if
such instances are brought to the notice of the court, the
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
court would be obgliged to dismiss such appeals with
heavy cost apart from deprecating such practices.
17. It is pertinent to note that the accident had
occurred on 11.3.2015. It is more than six years since
the respondents/claimants have been denied the fruits of
the compensation, i.e, legally due to them. The
admission of the appeal that was filed on 23.10.2018,
and waiting for its final outcome would cause more
miseries and hardship to the respondents/claimants.
18. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings
and materials on record and the elaborate findings of
the Tribunal in the impugned award, I am of the
considered opinion that there are no justifiable grounds
made out in the memorandum of appeal warranting the
admission of the appeal which would only be a wastage
of judicial time and cause undue harassment to the
respondents/claimants.
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2018
Following the ratio in Kiran Singh (supra), I hold
that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not
warrant admission. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal at
the threshold.
Ma/23.7.2021 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/
