Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Haseena M on 10 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
MACA NO. 2445 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.08.2020 IN OP(MV)NO.1800/2018 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE.
APPELLANT/THIRD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR,POOTHERI BUILDING,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631,
REP BY THE DULY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ASST.
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 011
BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6:
1 HASEENA M,
W/O. DECEASED JALALUDHEEN.P.K.,
RESIDING AT PULIKKALAKATHKANNAPPANTHODI
POST PERUMUGHAM, KALLAMPARA,
FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631
2 AYSDHA.P.K.,
AGED 17 YEARS,
D/O. DECEASED JALALUDHEEN,(MINOR),
RESIDING AT PULIKKALAKATHKANNAPPANTHODI POST
PERUMUGHAM, KALLAMPARA,
FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631
3 JAMEELA.P.K.,
AGED 67 YEARS,
W/O. PAREEKUTTY, MOTHER OF DECEASED
JALALUDHEEN.P.K., RESIDING AT
PULIKKALAKATHKANNAPPANTHODI POST PERUMUGHAM,
KALLAMPARA, FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631
4 NOUSHAD.N.T.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY,
BROTHER OF DECEASED JALALUDHEEN.P.K.,
RESIDING AT NEELEDATH THACHOLI HOUSE,
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
-:2:-
VALLIKUNNU NORTH POST,
KADLUNDI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-673 314
5 NISHAD.N.T.,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY,
BROTHER OF DECEASED JALALUDHEEN.P.K.,
RESIDING AT NEELEDATH THACHOLI HOUSE,
VALLIKUNNU NORTH POST,
KADLUNDI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-673 314
6 NAZEEDA,
D/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY,
SISTER OF DECEASED JALALUDHEEN.P.K.,
RESIDING AT NEELEDATH THACHOLI HOUSE,
VALLIKUNNU NORTH POST, KADLUNDI NAGARAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-673 314
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
-:3:-
Dated this the 10th day of September,2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant - insurer - was the third respondent
in O.P (MV)No.1800/2018 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The
respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal were the petitioners
and respondents 4 to 6 were respondents 4 to 6
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,(in
short 'Act') claiming compensation on account of the
death of 'Jalaludheen'(deceased), the husband of the
first petitioner, the father of the second petitioner, the
son of the third petitioner and the brother of
respondents 4 to 6. It was the case of the petitioners
that, on 29.03.2018, while the deceased was riding on
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11/ AB-683
(motorcycle) from Feroke to Kallanpara, when he
reached the place near Alaija Rubber Factory, a tipper
lorry bearing registration No.KL-55/E-7600(lorry),
driven by the second respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased.
Even though the deceased was rushed to the hospital,
he lost his life on 31.03.2018. The deceased was a
painter by profession and earning a monthly income of
Rs.24,000/-. The lorry belonged to the first respondent
and was insured with the third respondent. The
petitioners claimed that they were the dependants of
the deceased. Hence, they claimed a compensation of
Rs.35,00,000/- from the respondents.
3. The respondents 2, 4 to 6 did not contest the
proceedings and were set ex parte.
4. The first respondent filed a written statement
admitting that he was the owner of the lorry. However,
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
it was contended that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the deceased. The first respondent has
also disputed the age, occupation and income of the
deceased.
5. The third respondent filed a written
statement admitting that the lorry had a valid
insurance coverage. It was reiterated that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1
to A5 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any
evidence.
7. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition, by
directing the third respondent to pay the petitioners
an amount of Rs.22,80,000/- with interest and costs in
the ratio of 50:40:10.
8. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant/third
respondent/insurer is in appeal.
9. Heard; Sri. Rajan P.Kaliyath, the learned
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
counsel appearing for the appellant/third respondent.
10. The principle grounds of challenge in the
memorandum of appeal are:
(i) the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal is on the higher side;
and
(ii) the Tribunal ought not have granted
interest at the rate of 9% per annum
on the compensation amount.
Ground No.(i)
11. The petitioners had averred in the claim
petition that the deceased was a painter by profession
and earning a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of
the deceased at Rs.15,000/-.
12. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
[(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month.
13. In Pushkar Mehra v. Brij Mohan
Kushwala and others [(2015)12 SCC 688], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income
of a skilled labourer in the year 2010, at Rs.7,020/- per
month.
14. In view of the law laid down in the afore-cited
decisions and considering the fact that the deceased
was a skilled painter by profession and the accident
occurred in the year 2018, I am of the firm opinion
that there is no error or illegality in the fixation of the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per
month.
Ground No.(ii)
15. With respect to Tribunal awarding interest at
the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation
amount, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Others[(2014)1 SCC
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
244] and Anjani Singh & Others v. Salauddi and
Others [(2014) 15 SCC 582], has fixed rate of interest
at the rate of 9% per annum in motor accidents claim
cases, following the ratio in M.C.D. v. Uphaar
Tragedy Victims Association [(2011) 14 SCC 481].
In such circumstances, I hold that there is absolutely
no error on the part of the Tribunal in awarding
interest at the rate of 90% per annum.
16. On a comprehensive appreciation of the
pleadings, materials on record and the elaborate
findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not find any
error in the compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.
17. The Honourable Supreme Court in New
Indian Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kiran Singh &
Others [2004 AIR SCW 4212] has depreciated the
practice of insurance companies contesting genuine
claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to
court and wasting enormous time and money.
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
18. It is to be borne in mind that the accident
occurred as early as on 29.03.2018 and it is nearly
four years, since the petitioners have been knocking at
the doors of the courts seeking compensation. It is
trite, that the Tribunals are permitted to do some
guess work and also exercise its discretion in awarding
reasonable and just compensation, for which there
cannot be any straight jacket formula based on
arithmetic exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has,
after a threadbare analysis of the facts, judicially
exercised its powers based on the provision of the Act
and the authoritative precedents of the Honourable
Supreme Court, arrived at the conclusion in the
impugned award. I do not find any justifiable grounds
in the memorandum of appeal warranting admission of
the appeal, which would only be a wastage of judicial
time and harassment to the respondents.
19. It is also brought to the notice of this Court
M.A.C.A.No.2445/2021
that the appellant has already deposited a substantial
amount as per the impugned award before the
Tribunal.
In the result, following the ratio in Kiran Singh
(supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merits
and does not warrant admission. Needless to mention
that the appellant is liable to pay/deposit only the
remaining amount due as per the impugned award,
after deducting the amount already deposited.
Resultantly, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST //True copy/
P.A.To Judge
