Kerala High Court
Laila And Others vs Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others on 3 June, 2022
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 1219 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 981/2002 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 LAILA,PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYATH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
2 KUNJUMON, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
3 RAMLATH, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
4 SHAHIDA, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
5 THAHA, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA SOUTH
PANCHAYAH WARD I, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SANOJ KOSHY VARGHESE, S/O.KOSHY VARGHESE, V.S.BHAVAN,
ANCHAL PANCHAYATH WARD 7, NADIYANA P O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM
DISTRICT
2 RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.K.GOPALAN, LAL BHAVAN, AGATHYACODE,
ANCHAL P O, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
2
LTD., P B NO.17, PUNALOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1219 of 2022
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022
J U D G M E N T
1. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the
deceased, in O.P(M.V.)No.981 of 2002 are the appellants
in this appeal. They assail the order of the Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha dated
04.04.2008 in the said Original Petition, as per, which
a total sum of Rs.2,21,600/- was awarded as compensation
on account of the death of the son of the first
petitioner/first appellant. The accident occurred in
the year 2001, when the deceased was 20 years old.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants claimed
enhancement on the following grounds.
Firstly, learned counsel contended that monthly income
of the deceased was reckoned at Rs.2,100/-. According
to the appellants, deceased was a fish commission agent
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
at the relevant time earning an income of Rs.7,500/- per
month. In support of the same, Ext.A9 certificate was
also produced, but the same was not proved by examining
the person who issued it. At any rate, a sum of
Rs.3,000/- is liable to be reckoned as against
Rs.2,100/- taken by the Tribunal is the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellants. This Court is
of the opinion that the said submission of the learned
counsel is reasonable and therefore, the monthly income
is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.
3. The second contention is with respect to the
multiplier applied. As against the multiplier of 18,
the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier as 12.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance
company also has no quarrel in this regard.
Accordingly, the correct multiplier of 18 is to be
applied. However, learned counsel for the respondent
pointed out that the deduction to be effected is not
one-third, but one-half, since the deceased, at the
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
relevant time, was a bachelor. The said contention is
also accepted.
4. The next contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is that, no amount is
reckoned towards future prospects. 40% of the income is
liable to be reckoned towards future prospects. The
said contention of the learned counsel is in tune with
the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT
662 (SC)] and hence, liable to be accepted.
5. A sum of Rs.5,000/- alone is given towards the
funeral expenses and transportation. According to the
learned counsel, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be given for
funeral expenses alone, going by Pranay Sethi's case
(supra). The said contention is liable to be accepted
and therefore this Court award Rs.15,000/- as funeral
expenses and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for transportation.
6. Another bone of contention is with respect to
the consortium to be given to the mother/first
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
appellant/first claimant. She is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards consortium going by Pranay Sethi's
case. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out
that, Rs.10,000/- given under the head loss on account
of love and affection is not liable to be granted, since
consortium and loss on account of love and affection
cannot be granted simultaneously, as held by the
Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company
Ltd. v. Somwati [2020(9) SCC 644]. The said amount of
Rs.10,000/- is therefore liable to be excluded.
7. Loss of estate is not reckoned by the Tribunal.
A sum of Rs.15,000/- as held in Pranay Sethi's case is
liable to be awarded under that head. The last ground
of contention of the learned counsel is with respect to
the interest awarded @6% per annum. According to the
learned counsel, in the year 2001, the interest is much
more. This Court requested the learned counsel
appearing on both sides to find out the interest
prevailing in the year 2001. Both counsel, after
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
necessary verification, submitted that the interest rate
prevailing in the 2001 is 7%. However, learned counsel
for the respondent submitted that the amount awarded by
the Tribunal is already deposited @6% interest as
directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court limits
the rate of interest @7% only for the enhanced amount.
In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the
amount liable to be compensated to the appellant is as
shown below.
Sl. Head of Claim Amount Total amount after
No. awarded by enhancement in
the appeal
Tribunal
1 Transportation, carriage 5000 16,000 (15000+1000)
of dead body & funeral
expenses
2 Pain and suffering 5000
3 Loss of love & affection 10000 nil
4 Loss of dependency 201600 4,53,600
(3000+1200=4200,
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
4200x1/2-2100
2100x12=25200
25200x18)
5 Loss on consortium 40,000
6 Loss of estate 15,000
2,21,600 5,24,600
Amount enhanced =Rs.5,24,600/- - Rs.2,21,600/-= Rs.3,03,000/
8. 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 amount, at the
rate of 7% from the date of petition. If any amounts
have already been paid, the same shall be granted set
off. Since there was a delay of 171 days in filing the
appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not
run for the said period as directed in order dated
17.11.2021 in C.M.A.No.1/2009 in this appeal. The
claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account
before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months
M.A.C.A.1219/2009
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 of 7% per annum from the date of petition.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sbna/
