Chandrangathan vs Thahira T
2023 Latest Caselaw 1703 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 12TH MAGHA,
                            1944
                    MACA NO. 3826 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV)302/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , TALIPARAMBA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

   1      CHANDRANGATHAN, S/O C.V.NARAYANAN,
          AGED 60 YEARS, KADANGOTTU HOUSE,
          NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, TALIPARAMBA.P.O.,
          TALIPARAMBA AMSAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
          KANNUR DISTRICT.
   2      SANDHYA,D/.CHANDRANGATHAN,
          AGED 32 YEARS, KADANGOTTU HOUSE,
          NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, TALIPARAMBA.P.O.,
          TALIPARAMBA AMSAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
          KANNUR DISTRICT.
   3      SOUMYA,D/O.CHANDRANGATHAN,
          AGED 28 YEARS, KADANGOTTU HOUSE,
          NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, TALIPARAMBA.P.O.,
          TALIPARAMBA AMSAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
          KANNUR DISTRICT.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
          SRI.V.A.SATHEESH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      THAHIRA T.
           W/O.SAYYED.K.V.T, SAFIYA MANZIL,
           VELLARAM PARA, KARIMBAM.P.O.,TALIPARAMBA,
           TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 142.
    2      MUHAMMED AZHARAT, S/O.HASSAN KUNHI,
           KARIMBAM.P.O.,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
 WPC.No.3826/2016
                                    ..2..

               KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 142
    3          THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
               CO.LTD, TALIPARAMBA BRANCH, MARINA SHOPPING
               CENTRE, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, TALIPARAMBA,
               KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141
               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
               SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.


        THIS     MOTOR   ACCIDENT     CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING   BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC.No.3826/2016
                                      ..3..




                                JUDGMENT

On 9.3.2013, at about 9 AM, late C.V.Narayanan was

involved in an accident, while he was crossing the road through

the "zebra line", on account of the rash and negligent driving

of the offending vehicle by the 2nd respondent.

2. C.V.Narayanan died on the same day and thereafter,

the appellants approached the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Taliparamba, filing OP(MV)No.302/2016, claiming a

total compensation of Rs.10,12,000/-, limiting it to Rs 10 lakhs;

and after trial, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.6,15,000/- in their favour.

3. The appellants impugn the Award on the ground

that the amounts granted are insufficient, particularly under

the head 'loss of dependency' because, the income reckoned

for the deceased was only Rs.5,000/- per month, while he was

earning more than Rs.25,000/-.

4. I have heard Sri.V.T.Madhavan Unni - learned

counsel appearing for the appellants; and Sri.Mathews Jacob

learned senior counsel, instructed by Smt.Preethy Nair - WPC.No.3826/2016 ..4..

appearing for the Insurance Company.

5. This appeal is being disposed of with the consent of

both sides, on the basis of the documents and evidence

handed across the Bar by them, who also affirmed that it can

be acted upon without dispute.

6. Sri.V.T.Madhavan Unni - learned counsel for the

appellant, vehemently argued that, going by the documents

and evidence on record, the income of the deceased ought to

have been taken as a minimum of Rs.12,000/- and therefore,

that, the impugned Award is wrong to that extent. He further

contended that, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is in

error and that, had the correct one applied, the amount

granted would have been much higher.

7. In response, Sri.Mathews Jacob - learned senior

counsel for the insurance company, submitted that, since there

is no evidence on record with respect to the income of the

deceased, the Tribunal has acted without error in having

adopted Rs5000/- per month as his notional income. He then

added that, the afore being so, there are mistakes in the

Award, namely, with respect to the amounts awarded under WPC.No.3826/2016 ..5..

the head 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate', since not more

than Rs.15,000/- could have been awarded under these, going

by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662

(SC)]. He concluded his submissions, saying that, in any event

of the matter, no amount towards compensation for 'loss of

love and affection' could have been granted, when

compensation for 'loss of dependency' had been awarded; and

that the compensation for 'loss of consortium' at Rs.1,00,000/-

by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), especially when

appellants 2 and 3 were not dependents of deceased

C.V.Narayanan.

8. I have considered the afore rival submissions and

have also gone through the evidence and materials on record,

handed across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. I find force in the submissions of the learned Senior

Counsel that there is no material on record to establish the

income of the deceased at the time of the accident. However,

going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC.No.3826/2016 ..6..

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the standard

notional income fixed for a person in the year 2012, with

uncertain income, is Rs.9,000/- and this is admitted to even by

the Insurance Company. In the absence of any evidence to

show that the deceased did not receive this amount, I am of

the view that said figure should ought to have been adopted.

10. As regards the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, I

do not find any error because, 9 has been fixed, which is as per

the judgment Sarla varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)].

11. The corollary questions are, whether the Tribunal

has erred in granting amounts under the heads 'funeral

expenses'; 'loss of estate' and 'loss of love and affection'.

12. In this regard, there is certainly some force in the

submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance

Company because, going by Pranay sethi (supra) and New

India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati & Ors. [(2020)

9 SCC 644], not more than Rs.15,000/- each could have been

granted towards 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'. WPC.No.3826/2016 ..7..

Further, when 'loss of dependency' has been computed,

compensation for 'loss of love and affection' ought not to have

been admitted to it, going by Somwati (supra) and the

amount granted under that head also will have to be deleted.

13. However, as regards the compenstion granted by

the Tribunal towards consortium is concerned, the Insurance

Company has neither chosen to file cross obejections or even

counter pleadings before this Court in substantiation of the

plea that appellants 2 and 3 were not dependents of late

C.V.Narayanan. This is a pure question of fact, which ought to

have been established by them through evidence, or atleast

through counter pleadings; and in the absence of the same,

the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in excess or

improper.

Resultantly, I allow this appeal in part, with the following

directions:

a) The amount under the head 'loss of dependency' is

revised to Rs.7,12,800/-, taking the income of the deceased

C.V.Narayanan, as being Rs.9,000/- and adopting the correct

multiplier;

WPC.No.3826/2016 ..8..

b) The amount under the head 'funeral expenses' is

reduced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.25,000/-;

c) The amount under the head 'loss of estate' is

reduced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.25,000/-; and

d) The amount under the head 'compensation for love

and affection' is deleted.

In all other respects, the Award of the Tribunal will remain

intact.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR