Kerala High Court
Mohammed Nabeel vs B.Rajeev on 12 March, 2021
M.A.C.A.Nos.3474 & 4219 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.4219 OF 2018(B)
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 100/2010 DATED 19-01-2016 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANT/S:
1 MOHAMMED NABEEL,
AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O.LATE ASGAR, VADAKKE ATTATHU, CMC-3,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
2 SALMA,
S/O.LATE ASGAR, VADAKKE ATTATHU,
CMC-3, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA (MINOR),
REP.BY HER LEGAL GUARDIAN V.Y.ZIAD,
VADAKKE ATTATHU, CMC 3,
CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 B.RAJEEV,
RAJEEVAN, NEAR KOLLAPPALY TEMPLE,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPUZHA-688 013. (OWNER)
2 K.C.MATHEW,
S/O.CHACKO, KOTTARAPARAMBIL, CHEECANCHIRA,
CHANGANCERRY-686 101. (DRIVER)
3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTS, XL/3599,
4TH FLOOR, ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING,
SHAMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 031.
4 MARIYAM BEEVI,
W/O.LATE YUSUF, VADAKKE ATTATHU,
CMC-3, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 524.
M.A.C.A.Nos.3474 & 4219 of 2018 2
R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI
R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.3474/2016(F), THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.3474 & 4219 of 2018 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.3474 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 100/2010 DATED 19-01-2016 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/S:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MOHAMMED NABEEL,(MINOR)
S/O.LATE ASGAR, VADAKE ATTATHU, CMC -3,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN: 688 524.
2 SALMA, DO.LATE ASGAR MINOR,
VADAKKE ATTATHU, CMC -3, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,
(RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED
BY NEXT FRIEND, 3RD RESPONDENT) 688 524.
3 MARIYAM BEEVI,
W/O.LATE YOUSOPH, VADAKKE ATTATHU, CMC-3,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN: 688 524.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.03.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.4219/2018(B), THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.3474 & 4219 of 2018 4
JUDGMENT
[MACA.4219/2018, MACA.3474/2016]
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021
Both these appeals are arising from the award passed in
O.P.(MV).No.100 of 2010 by the Additional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-I, Alappuzha. M.A.C.A.No.3474 of 2016 was
filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of
compensation, whereas M.A.C.A.No.4219 of 2018 was filed by
the claimants in the said petition, seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
2. Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as per their
status in the cause title of the claim petition.
3. The petitioners filed the above claim petition seeking
compensation for the death of one Sajitha, who was a house wife
aged 31 years, in a motor accident which occurred on
24.12.2008. The total claim of compensation put forward is
Rs.10,62,750/-. The accident occurred when she was traveling in
a car along with her family consist of husband and children, it hit
against a tree on the side of the road. In the accident, the
deceased as well as her husband died.
4. The Insurance Company appeared and filed a written
statement admitting the coverage of policy; but disputed the
liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was
also seriously disputed. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an
award allowing a total compensation of Rs.13,05,905/- and the
3rd respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the
said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Challenging the quantum of compensation, both the above
appeals are filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the claim petitioners
and also the counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.
The learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower
side and on the other hand the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company contended that the amount awarded is excessive. The
dispute arising in these appeals are to be considered in the
above circumstances. On going through the contents of the
award, it is seen that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal
for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of
dependency was Rs.4,000/-. It is also discernible that the
Tribunal made an addition of 50% of the monthly income
towards future prospects, but no deduction is seen made
towards personal expenses. The learned counsel for the
Insurance Company mainly contended that, the addition of 50%
is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
[(2017) 16 SCC 680] and similarly, lack of deduction towards
personal expenses is also against the principles set out in the
said judgment. In the light of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the fixation of
compensation towards loss of dependency is necessarily have to
be re-worked. The crucial point to be taken into consideration
while computing the compensation for loss of dependency is the
monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was a house wife
and going by the claim petition, no monthly income is seen
claimed. However, this Court is of the opinion that a reasonable
amount has to be taken as monthly income for a house wife by
following the principles of law as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in this regard. As per the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the monthly income in
this case can be reasonably fixed as Rs.6,500/- as against
Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. In the light of the principles
laid down in Pranay Sethi's case, an addition of 50% is on
higher side and the proper addition to be made is 40%.
Similarly, no deduction towards personal expenses is also seen
made. This Court is of the view that the compensation under the
head of loss of dependency has to be re-worked by taking the
revised monthly income after making an addition of 40% and
also making a deduction of 1/3 thereof. In the above
circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed as
Rs.6,500/- and with an addition of 40%, it will come to
Rs.9,100/-. Thus the total amount of compensation under the
said head shall be Rs.11,64,800/- (9100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3). The
amount awarded under this head by the Tribunal is
Rs.11,52,000/- and therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled for
a further sum of Rs.12,800/- under this head. On going though
the award, no amount is awarded under the head of loss of
estate. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in this regard, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded
and it is ordered so. Under the head of loss of love and affection,
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is seen granted, which is intended for
all the three petitioners. In the light of the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC
130], the children and parents of the deceased are entitled for
parental as well as filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. In this
case, appellants 1 and 2 are the children of the deceased and
therefore, entitled for the said amount at the said rates.
However, the 3rd petitioner, who is the 3rd petitioner in
M.A.C.A.No.37474 of 2016 is the mother in law of the deceased
and therefore, she may not be entitled for the said amount.
However, since she had lost her daughter-in-law, certainly she
must be granted some amount towards the loss of love and
affection. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view
that Rs.1,00,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal need not be
interfered with as the same can be adjusted against
compensation entitled by the appellants 1 and 2 under the head
of consortium and also against the compensation for loss of love
and affection, payable to the 3rd appellant/mother-in-law. It is
noticed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under
the head of funeral expenses, which is higher by Rs.10,000/-,
going by the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted. Thus
the total additional compensation payable to the
petitioners/appellants shall be Rs.17,800/- (12800+15000-
10000).
In the light of the above, both the appeals are disposed of
by granting a further sum of Rs.17,800/- to the claim petitioners.
The 3rd respondent/Insurance company shall deposit the said
amount along with 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
DG
APPENDIX OF MACA 4219/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2013 OF
OP(G & W) NO.40/2010 IN THE COURT OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA
