Kerala High Court
Reethamma vs [email protected] on 26 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
SATURDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1943
MACA NO. 672 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 3-3-2016 IN OPMV 1018/2012 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - I, ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1, 2 & 4 :
1 REETHAMMA,
MUNDACKAL VEEDU,MUTTAR P.O. ALAPPUZHA.
2 VARGHESE,
MUNDACKAL VEEDU, MUTTAR P.O. ALAPPUZHA.
3 CHINCHU MARIA GEORGE,
MUNDACKAL VEEDU, MUTTAR P.O. ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & 3RD PETITIONER :
1 KRISHNAKUMAR @ KUNJU,
KUNNEL VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA- 688 541.
2 GOPAKUMAR, KUNNEVELI,
PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA- 689 541.
3 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
E-8, EPIP RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN- 302 001.
4 REEJAMOL, MUNDACKAL VEEDU,
MUTTAR P.O. ALAPPUZHA- 689 574.
BY ADVS.
R3 BY SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.672 of 2017
- 2 -
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.672 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the dependents of a 25 year old Computer
Operator, who had permanent employment and a resident card in
the Middle East. The appellants produced his educational
qualifications as per Exts.A7 to A9. His passport was marked as
Ext.A10. Exts.A11 and A12 are the salary certificates, which
reveals an income of Rs.35,000/- per month. Ext.A14 is the
resident card cum driving license.
2. The Tribunal adopted Rs.6,000/- as notional income and
future prospects at 50% and the multiplier of 17. The learned
counsel claims enhancement on all these counts.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance
Company pointed out that the deceased had passed 25 years and
hence the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is correct and there is
no scope for granting 50% future prospect since the employment
cannot be said to be a permanent one. It is also pointed out that
there is excessive compensation under the heads of funeral
expense and love and affection, which has to be reduced.
M.A.C.A.No.672 of 2017
- 3 -
4. Going by Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC
236, the notional income of a coolie is fixed at Rs.8,000/- in the
year 2012 when the accident occurred. In the present case, there
is ample proof for the employment of the deceased, that too
abroad in the Middle East, where he has a resident card cum
driving license. The salary certificate shows an income of
Rs.35,000/-.Considering the salary certificate and the income
generated from abroad, the notional income is fixed at Rs.20,000/-
per month. As far as the future prospects are concerned, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs
Pranay Sethi and Others ((2017) 16 SCC 680) and Sarla
Verma (Smt) v. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC
121), has fixed future prospects at 50% for permanent
employment. It cannot be equated necessarily to Government
employment. There is also no appeal by the Insurance Company.
5. Considering the fact that the deceased was employed
abroad and had the qualifications for such employment, he has to
be deemed to have been in permanent employment and future
prospects have to be adopted at 150%. As far as the claim of age,
the learned counsel for the appellants points out that his date of
M.A.C.A.No.672 of 2017
- 4 -
birth as revealed from Exts.A7 and A14 is 27-04-1987, the
accident was just two months past his 25 th birthday. The multiplier
of 17 is for persons between 26 to 30 and hence the multiplier to
be adopted in this case is 18.
6. The funeral expenses will be reduced by Rs.10,000/-
and loss of consortium can only be to the parents, which will be
Rs.80,000/-. In the wake of the grant of loss of consortium, there
can be no compensation for love and affection, which stands
deleted. For loss of estate, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted.
Enhancement is made as per the tabulation below:
Head of Claim Amount awarded Total amount after
Sl. by the Tribunal enhancement in appeal
No. Rs
Rs
1 Transportation 3000 3000
2 Funeral expenses 25000 15000
3 Extra nourishment - -
4 Love and affection 100000 Deleted
5 Loss of estate - 15000
6 Bystanders expense - -
7 Medical bills - -
8 Damage to cloths - -
9 Pain and sufferings 10000 10000
10 Loss of dependency 918000 20000 x 150% x 12 x 18 x
1/2=3240000
11 Loss of consortium - 80000
12 Ambulance charge - -
13 Misc.expenses - -
Total 1056000 3363000
M.A.C.A.No.672 of 2017
- 5 -
Amount enhanced : Rs. 33,63,000/- - Rs.10,56,000/- =Rs.23,07,000/-
5. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned
award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 5% from the
date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same
shall be granted set off. The claimant(s) shall produce the details
of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within
one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account
directly through NEFT/RTGS mode within a period of one month
thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time
stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the
enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court.
However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as
directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the
rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
amk
