Kerala High Court
Asad vs Shriram General Insurance on 30 July, 2021
MACA No.1757 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
MACA NO. 1757 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO.4/2017 DATED 21.4.2018 OF THE
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ASAD
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.MOOSAKUTTY HAJI, AGED 48 YEARS,KALARIKKADAN (H),
EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DT.,PIN: 676541, (FATHER OF
DECEASED SHAROOQ).
2 NUSRATH M.,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O ASAD, KALARIKKADAN (H), EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM
DT.,PIN: 676541, (MOTHER OF DECEASED SHAROOQ).
3 ADHIL RAHIYAN K.K.
S/O ASAD, AGED 13 YEARS, KALARIKKADAN (H),EDAVANNA
P.O., MALAPPURAM DT, PIN: 676541.REP BY NEXT FRIEND
FATHER ASAD, S/O.MOOSAKUTTY HAJI,AGED 48 YEARS,
KALARIKKADAN (H), EDAVANNA P.O.,MALAPPURAM DT, PIN:
676541, (BROTHER OF DECEASED SHAROOQ).
BY ADV SRI.N.V.P.RAFEEQUE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
E-8 EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,SITAPUR, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN, PIN: 302022,(INSURER OF GOODS MAXIMA
BEARING NO:KL-10-AK-5219.
BY ADV. JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1757 of 2018 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants in
OP(MV)No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Principle
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode seeking
enhancement of compensation. The claim petition was
filed seeking compensation for the death of one
Sharooq due to the injuries sustained in a motor
accident occurred on 21.09.2016. The appellants 1
and 2 are the parents of the deceased and the 3 rd
appellant is his brother. According to the
appellants, the deceased was aged 20 years and was
working as a salesman with a monthly income of
Rs.12,000/-. As compensation, an amount of Rs.30
lakhs was claimed.
2. The claim petition was resisted by the 3rd
respondent-Insurance Company only. Even though they
accepted the coverage of policy for the vehicle
involved, they disputed the liability on various
grounds. The quantum of compensation was also
seriously disputed by them. The evidence in this
consists of Exhibits A1 to A6 from the side of the
appellants. But no evidence was adduced from the
side of the respondents.
3. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an
award allowing a total compensation of
Rs.11,92,400/-. Being dissatisfied with the said
compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants
contend that the amount awarded under the head of
loss of dependency is grossly inadequate. He points
out that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is
only Rs.7,000/- as against the claim of Rs.12,000/-.
He further points out that as per the principles
laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011)13 SCC 236] and
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance
Company Limited [(2014)2 SCC 735], the Tribunal could
not have arrived at such a low figure even if no
evidence is adduced to prove the income. This Court
finds some force in the contention put forward by
the learned counsel for the appellants in this
regard. On the basis of the principles laid down in
the said judgments, this court is consistently
assessing the monthly income by taking base monthly
income of Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004. For fixing
the monthly income of the persons involved in the
accident during the subsequent years, the normal
method adopted is to add Rs. 500/- per year. In this
case, while applying the above method, as the
accident occurred in the year 2016, the monthly
income comes to Rs.10,500/- and it is accordingly
fixed. When re-assessing the compensation under the
head of loss of dependency with the above revised
monthly income and retaining all the other criteria
adopted by the Tribunal, it would come to
Rs.15,87,600/-(Rs(10500+40%)x12x18x50/100).
6. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel
for the Insurance Company points out that, the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- under
the head of loss of love and affection which ought
not to have been granted. It is true that, as per
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Satwinder Kaur
and Others (AIR 2020 SC 3076), no amount is to be
granted under the head of loss of love and
affection. However, the parents are entitled for
filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Satwinder Kaur's case (supra). In such
circumstances, while setting aside the amount
awarded under the head of loss of love and
affection, I am granting an amount of Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000x2) as filial consortium to appellants
1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the 3rd appellant who is a minor was
depending upon the deceased and some amount should
be granted to him as compensation for love and
affection. It is true that in the judgment in
Satwinder Kaur (supra), it has been held that no
compensation is to be granted under the head of loss
of love and affection. But a perusal of the said
judgment would reveal that, that direction was
issued in view of the fact that when compensation is
granted under the head of loss of consortium that
would take care of the compensation for love and
affection. In this case, according to me, the
entitlement of compensation for loss of consortium
(filial) is limited to appellants 1 and 2. As the
appellant No.3 is not entitled for any compensation
for loss of consortium, there is no prohibition in
granting some amount as compensation under the head
of loss of love and affection to him. Considering
the facts and circumstances, I feel that an amount
of Rs.20,000/- would be a reasonable amount as
compensation under this head to the 3rd appellant.
In such circumstances, the compensation
receivable by the appellants is re-fixed
as Rs.17,46,600/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs forty
six thousand and six hundred only)
(Rs.15,87,600+2,000+2,000+25,000+15,000+80,000+20,000+15000)
instead of Rs.11,92,400/-. The 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said
amount along with the same interest and
proportionate costs as ordered by the Tribunal,
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
