V.Deepa Rani vs Biju P.B
2022 Latest Caselaw 6873 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
  TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                   MACA NO. 1009 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.11.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.439/2009 OF
        MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

         V.DEEPA RANI,
         AGED 33 YEARS,
         W/O.LATE RATHEESH A.L.,
         'DEEPANJALI',
         MUKKOLACKAL,
         NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
         SMT.K.N.RAJANI
         SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
         SMT.ANILA PETER
         SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
         SRI.CAESAR V PILLA


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :

    1    BIJU P.B.,
         S/O.P.K.BHARATHAN,
         KANNANMURI HOUSE, XLIV/,
         ASOKA ROAD,
         KALOOR,
         COCHIN-682017
    2    V.SUBRAMANIAN,
         C/O.BIJU P.B.,
         KANNANMURI HOUSE,
         XLIV/2317, ASOKA ROAD,
         KALOOR,
         COCHIN-682017
 MACA No.1009 of 2012
                                 ..2..




     3       RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
             4TH FLOOR,
             ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEM BUILDING,
             SHANMUGHAM ROAD,
             COCHIN-682031
             BY ADV K.S.SANTHI



         THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION     ON   14.06.2022,   THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.1009 of 2012
                                  ..3..




                       MACA No.1009 of 2012
      --------------------------------------------------


                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the wife of one Ratheesh

is the appellant in this case. Respondents herein are the

respondents before the Tribunal. The appellant impugns

award dated 02.11.2011 in O.P.(MV)No.439 of 2009 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

The appellant claimed to be the sole legal heir

and dependent of the deceased 'Ratheesh' lodged claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

before the Tribunal and claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as

compensation from respondents 1 to 3 on the allegation

that the above said Ratheesh died in consequence of the MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..4..

accidental injuries contributed by R2.

4. R1 and R2 filed written statement and

denied the allegation, while highlighting policy with R3.

5. R3 filed written statement disputing the

accident and negligence, while admitting policy. Quantum

also was disputed.

6. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter relying

on Exts.A1 to A13 marked on the side of the appellant. No

evidence adduced by the other side. Finally, Rs.5,47,500/-

was granted with interest at 8% per annum.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on

lower side. According to the learned counsel, the appellant

claimed the income of late Ratheesh at Rs.11,025/-

based on Ext.A11 appointment letter issued from Malayala

Manorama Television Limited. Therefore, the learned

counsel pressed for increase in the monthly income and MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..5..

also consequential increase in the loss of dependency

income and compensation under conventional heads.

8. The learned counsel for the insurance

company would submit that though Ext.A11 would

suggest an offer to the deceased with salary to the tune of

Rs.11,025/-, no documents produced to substantiate that

the above said Ratheesh was given the said salary or

atleast he had joined for duty. Therefore, the amount as

such cannot be considered in the submission of the

learned counsel for the insurer.

9. Since Ext.A11 shows salary Rs.11,025/-, I

am of the view that Rs.8,000/- can be fixed as the

monthly income in this case with 25% addition, since the

deceased was aged 41 years at the time of the accident.

Similarly, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as '15' is

also incorrect and the proper multiplier is '14' as conceded

by both sides applying the ratio in [2010 (2) KLT 802], MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..6..

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. Thus,

the amount would come to Rs.8,000+25%=Rs.10,000/-

Therefore, the loss of dependency income is re-calculated

as under;

10,000x12x14x1/2=8,40,000/-

Out of which, Rs.4,80,000/- was granted by the

Tribunal. Rs.8,40,000-Rs.4,80,000= Rs.3,60,000/- more

is granted under the head loss of dependency income.

10. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal

granted Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of estate.

Rs.10,000/- more is granted under the loss of estate.

Then, Rs.7,500/- more is granted under the head funeral

expenses, since the Tribunal granted Rs.7,500/- alone.

Towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- more is granted

(since Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal). It is noted

that Rs.25,000/- granted under the head loss of love and

affection which is impermissible in view of the decision in MACA No.1009 of 2012 ..7..

[AIR 2020 SC 3076], United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v.

Satinder Kaur. Therefore, the said sum stands reduced.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is

ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced

compensation to the tune of Rs.3,72,500/- (Rupees Three

lakh Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred only) at the rate

of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the

amount already granted by the Tribunal from the date of

petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The

insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the

name of the appellant within two months from today and

on deposit, the appellant is at liberty to release the same.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj