Kerala High Court
Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Asokan K.N 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. 2446 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.04.2021 IN OP(MV) NO.918/2018 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DOOR NO.39/4166-A,
2ND FLOOR, SHEMA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN -682 016, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL
MANAGER, ANMOL PALANI, NO.88,
GN CHETTY ROAD,
CHENNAI - 600 017.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS:
1 ASOKAN K.N.,
AGED 54 YEARS,
KIZHAKKEKUDY HOUSE,
VADASSERY KARA, KOTTAPPADY P.O.,
KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 692.
2 KUNJUMOL,
AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O.ASOKAN K.N.,
KIZHAKKEKUDY HOUSE,
VADASSERY KARA,
KOTTAPPADY P.O.,
KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
-:2:-
3 ATHIRA ASOKAN,
AGED 22 YEARS,
D/O.ASOKAN K.N.,
KIZHAKKEKUDY HOUSE, VADASSERY KARA,
KOTTAPPADY P.O., KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.
4 AWATHY ASOKAN,
AGED 19 YEARS,
D/O.ASOKAN K.N.,
KIZHAKKEKUDY HOUSE, VADASSERY KARA,
KOTTAPPADY P.O., KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 692.
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.2446/2021
-:3:-
Dated this the 10th day of September,2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant - insurer - was the third respondent
in O.P (MV)No.918/2018 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The
respondents in the appeal were the petitioners 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 'Akhil Asokan'(deceased), the son of the
petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of respondents 3
and 4. It was the case of the petitioners that, on
22.07.2018, while the deceased was riding as a pillion
rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.
KL-44/B-7277(motorcycle) through the Chirappady
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
-Parachalippay road, the rider of the motorcycle - the
first respondent before the Tribunal - lost control of
the motorcycle and the deceased fell on the road and
sustained serious injuries. He was treated at the
M.B.M.M. Hospital, Kothamangalam and thereafter, at
the Rajagiri Hospital, Aluva. The deceased lost his life
on 23.07.2018. The accident occurred solely due to
the negligence of the first respondent. The second
respondent was the owner and the third respondent
was the insurer of the motorcycle. The deceased was
21 years of age and was a welder cum tress worker by
profession. He was earning a monthly income of
Rs.15,000/-. The petitioners were the dependants of
the deceased. Hence, they claimed a compensation of
Rs.47,32,000/- from the respondents.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the
proceedings and were set ex parte.
4. The third respondent filed a written
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
statement admitting that the motorcycle had a valid
insurance coverage. However, the third respondent
denied the fact that there was negligence on the part
of the first respondent. It was also contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners was highly
excessive.
5. The petitioners examined a witness as PW1
and marked Exts.A1 to A12 in evidence. The third
respondent produced the copy of the insurance policy
and marked it as Ext.B1 in evidence.
6. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in
part, by directing the third respondent/insurer to pay
an amount of Rs.25,38,035/- to the petitioners in the
ratio of 40:40:10:10.
7. Aggrieved by the said award, the
appellant/third respondent/insurer is in appeal.
8. Heard; Sri. George Cheriyan, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/third
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
respondent.
9. The principle grounds of challenge in the
Memorandum of appeal are:
(i) that the notional income of the
deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on
the higher side;
and
(ii) that the medical expenses awarded by
the Tribunal is excessive.
Ground No.(i)
10. The petitioners had averred in the claim
petition that the deceased was a welder cum tress
worker and was earning a monthly income of
Rs.15,000/-. The petitioners examined PW1 to
substantiate their contentions. The Tribunal, accepted
the uncontroverted oral testimony of PW1 and fixed
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-.
11. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
[(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year
2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month.
12. 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.
13. Following the above benchmark and taking
into account that the deceased was a skilled labourer,
who was only aged 21 years at the time of the accident
and the accident which happened in the year 2018, I
am of the considered opinion that the income of the
deceased fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month is reasonable
and justifiable. I do not find any reason to disagree or
differ with the finding of the Tribunal.
Ground No.(ii)
14. The next ground of challenge is that the
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
medical expenses that was directed to be reimbursed
was on the higher side.
15. The petitioners had produced Exts.A11 and
A12 inpatient bill summary and medical bills to prove
the amount that was expended on the deceased in
order to save his life. It is taking into account Exts.A11
and A12, that the Tribunal fixed the medical expenses
at Rs.1,30,035/-.
16. The petitioners have proved the actual
expenses that was incurred by them in order to save
the life of the deceased. I do not find any error or
illegality in the amount awarded towards medical
expenses.
17. With respect to the other heads of
compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded
reasonable and just compensation.
18. On a overall appreciation of the pleadings,
materials on record and the elaborate findings
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
rendered by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has
arrived at the conclusion after a threadbare analysis of
the facts and materials on record. I do not find any
error in the compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.
19. 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.
20. It is to be borne in mind that the accident
occurred as early as on 22.07.2018. It is more than
three 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
M.A.C.A.No.2446/2021
arithmetic exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has
judicially exercised its powers based on the provision
of the Act, and the authoritative precedents of the
Honourable Supreme Court while arriving 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.
Following the ratio in Kiran Singh (supra), I hold
that the appeal is devoid of any merits and does not
warrant admission.
Resultantly, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST //True copy/
P.A.To Judge
