Ammini Aravindakshan vs Sajith
2021 Latest Caselaw 21038 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA,
                            1943
                  MACA NO. 2424 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.506/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
        CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 23.5.2012


APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :

    1    AMMINI ARAVINDAKSHAN,
         ITTIYARATHIL HOUSE,
         THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O.,
         KOTTAYAM.
    2    AHILAMOL A.,
         D/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN,
         ITTIYARATHIL HOUSE,
         THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O.,
         KOTTAYAM.
    3    ARUNKUMAR A.,
         S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN,
         ITTIYARATHIL HOUSE,
         THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O.,
         KOTTAYAM.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
         SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
         SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
 MACA No.2424 of 2012            ..2..




RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1      SAJITH,
            THEKKINKATTUMALAYIL,
            CHIRAPPURAM BHAGOM,
            ENADI P.O., CHEMBU-686608.
     2      SREEKANTH,
            SREEVASAM, ENADI P.O.,
            VAIKOM-686608.
     3      THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
            KOTTAYAM-696001
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR.
            SRI.JEEMON P.ABRAHAM
            SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
            SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI
            SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
            SRI.N.C.SAJITH
            SRI.P.M.SAJITHA
            SMT.K.S.SANTHI, STANDING COUNSEL




      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   20.10.2021,   THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.2424 of 2012                   ..3..




                       M.A.C.A.No.2424 of 2012
            -------------------------------------------------------


                             JUDGMENT

The legal heirs of late Sri.Aravindakshan, who died in a

motor accident occurred on 02.02.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. while

walking through the road, who was hit down by the motorcycle

bearing registration No.KL 36/6588 ridden by the first respondent

in a rash and negligent manner, are the appellants herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. The petitioners claimed Rs.10 lakh as

compensation. The second respondent was set ex-parte by the

Tribunal.

4. The third respondent, the New India Assurance

Company filed a written statement admitting the policy and

disputing the liability. The amount claimed under various heads

also were disputed.

MACA No.2424 of 2012 ..4..

5. The first respondent filed a written statement

highlighting the policy of the third respondent and disputing the

accident as well as the negligence. The Tribunal did not adduce

any oral evidence. Exts.A1 to A17 marked on the side of the

petitioners and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the insurance

company. After having considered the claim on the basis of the

available evidence, the Tribunal granted Rs.4,56,055/- as against

the claim of Rs.10 lakh.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal, taking note of

the age of the dependants, was too low and actually the

deceased was in age group between 51-55 and hence the

multiplier required to be fixed as '11'(eleven) applicable to the

age group between 51-55.

7. The said aspect is not disputed by the learned

counsel for the insurance company taking note of the settled

legal position in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation MACA No.2424 of 2012 ..5..

[2010 (2) KLT 802].

8. On a perusal of Ext.A15, copy of the first page of

the SSLC book of Sri. Aravindakshan would show that he was

born on 26.09.1952 and as on the date of accident, he had

completed 55 years. In view of the matter, '11' (eleven) is the

proper multiplier to be applied in this case.

9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the

appellants further that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal

is also on the lower side. According to the learned counsel, the

appellants claimed Rs.7,500/- as the monthly income being a

mason. But the Tribunal fixed a monthly income at the rate of

Rs.4,500/-.

10. Law is no more res integrae in the matter of

monthly income in the case of persons who do not have

documents to prove the monthly income being coolie workers.

The Honourable Supreme Court held in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company MACA No.2424 of 2012 ..6..

Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] that the monthly income of a coolie

worker during 2004 can be at Rs.4,000/- per month. Similarly, in

the decision reported in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735], the

Honourable Supreme Court held that during 2008, a vegetable

vendor would fetch Rs.6,500/- per month. If the ratio of the

rulings applied to the facts of this case, definitely the monthly

income of the deceased who was a mason to be fixed at

Rs.6,500/-. Thus, the loss of dependency income calculated by

the Tribunal required to be interfered. It is not in dispute that,

following the ratio in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi & Ors.[2017 16 SCC 650] that the income of the

deceased herein required to be increased by 10% more being

future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency income is

recalculated as follows;

6,500+10% additional =7,150

7,150x12x11x2/3 = Rs.6,29,200/-

 MACA No.2424 of 2012              ..7..




           Rs.6,29,200-3,24,000       =   Rs.3,05,200/-    more    is

entitled to the appellants.

11. Coming to the other heads, the Tribunal granted

Rs.25,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.20,000/-

under the head loss of love and affection. The said amount

cannot be granted in view of the ratio of the decision in United

India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076]

So, the said amount is liable to be reduced. At the same time,

loss of consortium granted by the Tribunal is only Rs.15,000/- and

in fact, the appellants are entitled to get loss of consortium at the

rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, Rs.1,05,000/- more also granted

under the head loss of consortium. Apart from that, the

appellants are entitled to get Rs.9,000/- more under the head

funeral expenses, since the Tribunal granted only Rs.6,000/-

under the said head. The Tribunal granted only Rs.10,000/-under

the head loss of estate though the appellants are entitled to get

Rs.15,000/-. Thus, Rs.5,000/- more under this head also is MACA No.2424 of 2012 ..8..

granted following the principle in Satinder Kaur's case (supra).

Thus, the amount entitled by the appellants is recalculated as

Rs.3,05,200+1,05,000+9,000+5,000-45,000=Rs.3,79,200/-.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The

appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.3,79,200/-

(Rupees Three lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred only) in

addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under

the impugned award. The entire amount of compensation shall

carry interest at the rate of 7.5% granted by the Tribunal from the

date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The

insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name

of the appellants in equal proportion within two months from

today.

Sd/ A.BADHARUDHEEN, JUDGE rkj