Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Nazeera on 23 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 2280 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1589/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDOMKULATHY TOWERS,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 NAZEERA
W/O.LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER,
HILL PALACE, JANMIMUKKU,
NEAR ANAKKA PILLAI PALAM,
CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., PIN 695 301
KANIYAMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 NOWFAL
S/O.LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER,
HILL PALACE, JANMIMUKKU,
NEAR ANAKKA PILLAI PALAM,
CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., PIN 695 301
KANIYAMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
MACA No. 2280 OF 2014
2
3 MISS NAJU MUHAMMED
D/O.LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER,
HILL PALACE, JANMIMUKKU,
NEAR ANAKKA PILLAI PALAM,
CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., PIN 695 301
KANIYAMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SMT.J.KASTHURI
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No. 2280 OF 2014
3
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
===========================
MACA No. 2280 OF 2014
============================
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellant who is the 3rd respondent/insurer in
OP (MV) No.1589/2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram impugn the award dated
27.03.2014 on the ground that the Tribunal not applied split
multiplier in this case, while assessing loss of dependency
income, since the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of
accident. Respondents herein are claimants before the
Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as
the learned Counsel appearing for the original claimants.
3. In this matter, the original claimants being wife and
children had approached the Tribunal and filed a petition
under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation to
the tune of Rs.20 lakh.
MACA No. 2280 OF 2014
4. The Tribunal after finding negligence on the part of the
2nd respondent, adjudicated the claim and thereafter granted
Rs.14,16,796/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till
the date of realisation.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the multiplier 11 applied in this case shall be divided into
2+9. It is submitted further that if split multiplier is applied,
Rs.9953/- taken as the monthly income will be applicable to
only for 2 years and a lesser income should have been
considered for 9 years, covered by the post retirement period.
6. Refuting this contention, the learned Counsel for the
claimant placed latest decision of the Apex Court reported in
2021(6) KHC 163 (N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam
MS General Insurance Company Ltd.) contended that split
multiplier is not the rule and it is an exception. In the
decision, the Apex Court set aside the split multiplier applied
by this Court on the finding that split multiplier can be applied
only on specific reason and evidence on record. Going by the
evidence in this case, no specific reasons or evidence on
record is available to take contra view in deviation from the
MACA No. 2280 OF 2014
decision in N. Jayasree's case (supra). Since the challenge
raised by the insurance company solely on the ground of
application of split multiplier cannot be sustained in view of
the latest decision in N.Jayaree's case (supra), this appeal
found to be merit-less. Nothing survives to be adjudicated
further in this appeal otherwise.
Therefore, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Parties shall suffer their costs.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nk
