Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Lakshmi on 3 September, 2021
1
MACA No.3157 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
MACA NO. 3157 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 440/2012 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/S:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, VADAKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HOSPITAL ROAD,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 LAKSHMI
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, MAVULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-678001.
2 JANEESH M.
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. BABU T.P., PARAMBATH VEEDU, UMMANCHIRA,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670001, DRIVER OF KL-
58-A-6709 MINI LORRY.
3 THE MANAGING PARTNER
A.T.K.ENTERPRISES, KANAK COMPLEX, KAYYATH ROAD,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-679532 (OWNER OF KL
58-A-6709 MINI LORRY).
BY ADV SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING
COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA No.3157 of 2015
C.S.DIAS, J.
======================
MACA No.3157 of 2015
======================
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2021.
JUDGMENT
The appellant - insurer was the third respondent in
OP(MV) No.440/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The respondents in the
appeal were the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2
before the Tribunal.
2. The first respondent had filed the claim petition
under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation on account of the death of her
daughter, Radhika (deceased) in an accident on
16.3.2012.
3. It was the case of the first respondent in the
claim petition that, on 16.3.2012, while the deceased
was travelling with her husband on a motor cycle
bearing registration No.KL-9/M 3577 from
MACA No.3157 of 2015
Sreekrishnapuram to Taluk Hospital, Mannarkad, when
they reached near Ariyur bridge, a mini lorry bearing
registration No.KL 58/A 6709 (lorry), driven by the
second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit
the motor cycle. The deceased and her husband died on
the spot. The lorry was owned by the third respondent
and insured with the appellant. The first respondent
stated that the deceased was a rubber tapper by
profession and earning an income of Rs.300/- per day.
The first respondent was the sole dependent of the
deceased. She claimed a total compensation of
Rs.14,44,500/- from the appellant, which was limited to
Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. Even though the second respondent entered
appearance, no written statement was filed. The third
respondent did not contest the proceeding and was set
ex parte.
5. The appellant - insurer filed a written-
MACA No.3157 of 2015
statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition.
The appellant contended that the accident occurred due
to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle/the
husband of the deceased. The appellant also disputed
the age, income and occupation of the deceased.
Nevertheless, the appellant admitted that the lorry had a
valid insurance coverage.
6. The parents in law of the deceased filed OP
(MV) 439/2012 before the same Tribunal, claiming
compensation for the death of the deceased's husband.
The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the original
petitions.
7. The first respondent and a witness were
examined as PWs 1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A12 were
marked in evidence. The respondents did not let in any
evidence.
8. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by
the first respondent, by directing the appellant to pay
MACA No.3157 of 2015
the first respondent an amount of Rs.7,63,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization and proportionate
costs.
9. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant -
insurer is in appeal.
10. Heard; Smt.Deepa George, the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant/insurer and Sri.Sandeep T.K,
the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/petitioner.
11. The principal grounds of challenge in the
memorandum of appeal are (i) the notional income fixed
by the Tribunal is on the higher side, (ii) the Tribunal
ought not to have granted future prospects, and (iii)
there is no evidence to prove that the first respondent
was a dependent of the deceased.
Ground No.(i)
12. The first respondent had averred in the claim
MACA No.3157 of 2015
petition that the deceased was a rubber tapper by
profession and earning an amount of Rs.300/- per day.
The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased
at Rs.3,000/- per month.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13
SCC 236] has fixed the notional income of a coolie
worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month.
14. Following the above parameter and taking into
account the fact that the accident occurred in the year
2012, I do not find any ground to hold that the notional
income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
Therefore, I confirm the said finding.
Ground No.(ii)
15. The next ground is with regard to awarding of
future prospects.
16. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
MACA No.3157 of 2015
Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the dependents of the
deceased are also entitled to future prospects at the rate
of 40% in the case of self employed persons.
17. Even though the Tribunal has awarded future
prospects at 50%, taking into consideration the fact that
the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower
side, when compared with the benchmark in
Ramachandrappa (supra), I do not find any reason to
interfere with the said finding.
18. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd vs.
Vineesh.J [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that variation of four to five per cent in
enhancement of compensation is permissible. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I confirm
the finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent is
entitled for future prospects at 50%.
MACA No.3157 of 2015
Ground No.(iii)
19. Now coming to the third ground whether the
first respondent is a dependent of the deceased.
20. The first respondent was examined as PW2
who produced and proved Ext A12 relationship
certificate. The said certificate proves that the first
respondent was a dependent of the deceased. The
respondents have not let in any contra evidence. The
uncontroverted oral testimony of PW2 read with Ext A12
establishes that she was the mother and a dependent of
the deceased. With the undisputed materials available
on record, I am of the considered opinion that the
finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent is a
dependent of the deceased is perfectly justifiable.
Therefore, I answer ground No.(iii) also against the
appellant.
21. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings
and materials on record and the elaborate findings
MACA No.3157 of 2015
rendered by the Tribunal after a threadbare analysis of
the facts and materials on record, I do not find any
error in the compensation amount arrived at by the
Tribunal.
22. The Honourable Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kiran Sing & 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.
23. It is to be borne in mind that the accident
occurred on 16.3.2012. It is nearly a decade that the
poor mother of the deceased has been knocking at the
doors of the Court seeking compensation. It is trite, that
the Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and
also exercise their discretion in awarding reasonable
and just compensation, for which there cannot be any
strait jacket formula based on arithmetical exactitude. I
MACA No.3157 of 2015
find that the Tribunal has judicially exercised its powers
based on the provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and the authoritative precedents of the Honourable
Supreme Court while arriving at the conclusion. I do not
find any justifiable ground in the memorandum of appeal
warranting admission of the appeal, which will only be a
wastage of judicial time and a harassment to the first
respondent.
In the result, following the ratio in Kiran Sing
(supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and
does not warrant admission. Resultantly, I dismiss the
appeal at the threshold.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
SKS/3.9.2021 JUDGE
