Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Cathu C.K
2022 Latest Caselaw 9914 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                    MACA NO. 42 OF 2013
 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.09.2012 IN O.P.(MV)NO.794/2010
         OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P.(MV) :

         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
         28/293/6, 2ND FLOOR, R.V.TRADE CENTRE,
         PATTURACKAL THRISSUR-680 022
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
         SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR 12884


RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN O.P.(MV):

    1    CHATHU C.K.,
         S/O. LATE CHATHUNNI,
         MADATHIL KULANGARA HOUSE,
         CHELAMBRA(PO), PADINCHARUM PAI,
         MALAPPURAM-673634.
    2    C.K. SATHYANARAYANAN,
         S/O. CHATHUNNI,
         MADATHIL KULANGARA HOUSE,
         CHELAMBRA(PO), PADINCHARUM PAI,
         MALAPPURAM-673634.
    3    C.K. MANOHAR
         S/O. CHATHUNNI,
         MADATHIL KULANGARA HOUSE,
         CHELAMBRA(PO), PADINCHARUM PAI,
         MALAPPURAM-673634.
    4    T.T. JOSEPH,
         12/392, THAIKKADAN HOUSE,
         RAMAVARMAPURAM (PO)
         THRISSUR-680 631.
 MACA No.42 of 2013
                                    ..2..




     5       MARGASHERI-RAJESH,
             S/O. VISWANATHAN,
             EDAVALATH HOUSE, ATHOLI (PO),
             NEAR ATHOLI POLICE STATION,
             KOZHIKODE - 673 315.
             BY ADV SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR



         THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION     ON     31.08.2022,   THE      COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.42 of 2013
                                    ..3..




                       MACA No.42 of 2013
          -------------------------------------------


                             JUDGMENT

The third respondent, M/s.ICICI Lombard

General Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in

this matter. The original petitioners and the other

respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents

herein. Precisely, in this case, the claimants lodged

petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act

under the principles of 'no fault', consequent on the

death of one Devarajan.

2. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence

confined to Exts.A1 to A5 series, granted Rs.4,53,300/-

along with 9% interest. According to the learned MACA No.42 of 2013 ..4..

counsel for the appellant, grant of compensation to the

said sum is erroneous and is on higher side. It is

submitted that the age of the parents would govern

grant of compensation, in a case involving death of a

bachelor referring to the decision reported in [2008(1)

KLJ (SC) 894], Ramesh Singh and another v. Satbir

Singh and another. In fact, this judgment has no

binding effect, since it has been held that the decision

reported in [2010 (2) KLT 802], Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation that age of the deceased is

relevant in deciding the proper multiplier.

3. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated

further that in the decision reported in [1996 (2) KLT

218], U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Trilok Chandra, the Apex Court

held that there were mistakes in the Table given under MACA No.42 of 2013 ..5..

Clause 1 of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles

Act and therefore, neither the Tribunals nor the Courts

can go by the ready reckoner and the Table can only be

used as a guide. It is specifically pointed out in the

grounds of appeal that following the Table, the amount

cannot be calculated. It is true that there was mistake in

the multiplier shown in the schedule. But in [2017 (4)

KLT 662], National Insurance Company v. Pranay

Sethi, the Apex Court held that the selection of

multiplier shall be as indicated in paragraph 42 of the

judgment in [2010 (2) KLT 802], Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation. Therefore, the error in the

multiplier has been corrected in Sarla Verma's case

(Supra). As such, the structured formula can be followed.

4. In fact, in this matter, the original

petitioners claimed the income of the deceased at MACA No.42 of 2013 ..6..

Rs.3,300/- per month. Similarly, the age of the deceased

was 27 years. If so, 1/3 rd of Rs.6,80,000/- shown in the

schedule appended to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, along with Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate is entitled by the

claimants is as follows:

6,80,000x1/3=2,26,666/-

6,80,000-2,26,666=4,53,334/-

4,53,334+2,000+2,500=4,57,834/-

Therefore, the amount actually entitled by the appellant

would come to Rs.4,57,834/-. The Tribunal granted only

Rs.4,53,300/-.

Since the 'just compensation' entitled by the

claimants would come to Rs.4,57,834/-, the award

stands modified, following the principle of 'just MACA No.42 of 2013 ..7..

compensation' and the appeal is dismissed, holding that

no amount is granted in excess as contended and

modifying the award. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

total compensation entitled by the claimants is

Rs.4,57,834/- as 'just compensation' along with the

same rate of interest granted by the Tribunal.

The insurer is directed to deposit the same,

after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited

within two months.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj