Kerala High Court
Sujira A vs Manoj T G on 30 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945
MACA NO. 866 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.84/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS:
1 SUJIRA A
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.LATE SULAIMAN E.K,NISAR VILLA,
VADUTHALA JETTY P O, AROOKUTTI, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA-688535
2 SUHAIM SULAIMAN
MINOR AGED 15 YEARS
D/O.LATE SULAIMAN E.K, NISAR VILLA,
VADUTHALA JETTY P O, AROOKUTTI, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA-688535
3 SUBANA SULAIMAN
MINOR AGED 9 YEARS
D/O.LATE SULAIMAN E.K, NISAR VILLA,
VADUTHALA JETTY P O, AROOKUTTI, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA-688535
(MINOR APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1)
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MANOJ T.G
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.GOPI K.K, THATTAMPARAMPU, PALLIPPURAM P O,
CHERTHALA-688541
2 NAGESH
S/O.NADARAJAN, PALLIYIL HOUSE, ULAVAIPPU P O,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688539
3 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, PIN 686 673.
4 JACOB MATHEW
VATTAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KALLOORKKAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN 686668.
BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
MACA NO. 866 OF 2014 2
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR)
SMT.PREETHY NAIR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 866 OF 2014 3
JUDGMENT
This appeal, by the wife and children of Sulaiman - who was
unfortunately killed in a road accident on 29.09.2011, when the
motor cycle he was riding was hit by the offending vehicle driven in
a rash and negligent manner - calls into question the adequacy of
the compensation awarded to them for his death.
2. The appellants filed O.P(MV)No.84 of 2012 before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam ('Tribunal' for short), seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.50,50,000/-, limited to
Rs.50,00,000/-; but which has been allowed only to a sum of
Rs.7,14,000/-. They assert that this is exiguous and pray that it be
enhanced substantially, particularly because late Sulaiman was
working abroad for more than 17 years, earning in excess of
Rs.1,25,000/- per month.
3. Sri.P.B.Subramanyan - learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, argued that the factum of late Sulaiman working abroad
is established from Ext.A11, which also has endorsements to the
effect that he was doing so for nearly 17 years prior to the accident.
He then took me through Ext.A8, which is a Salary Certificate issued
by a company in Riyad, Saudi Arabia, which certifies that he was
drawing SR10,000 per month. He argued that this Certificate could
not have been brushed aside by the learned Tribunal because, it has
been attested by the Indian Embassy validly.
4. Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, thereafter, submitted that the amount
under the head 'Loss of Consortium' granted to his clients is also
inadequate because they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each; while
denial of compensation under the head 'Loss of Estate' is illegal. He
concluded asserting that an amount of Rs.15,000/- ought to have
been granted under the head 'Funeral Expenses', as against
Rs.5,000/- now awarded by the Tribunal since, National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662] authorizes
such a figure. He thus prayed that this appeal be allowed.
5. In response, Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Counsel,
instructed by Smt.Preethy Nair - learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance Company, argued that since the evidence on record is
insufficient to prove that the deceased was earning as stated in
Ext.A8, the learned Tribunal was justified in having adopted his
notional income to be Rs.4,000/- per month. He then argued that, in
fact, the sums awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'Loss of Love
and Affection' was impermissible, as per United India Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11
SCC 780] and prayed that same be deleted.
6. I have considered the afore rival submissions and have also
gone through the evidence on record.
7. I have examined Ext.A8, which is the Certificate issued by a
Company in Riyad, Saudi Arabia, relied upon vehemently by the
appellants. It certainly records that late Sulaiman was drawing
SR10,000 per month and this Certificate has been attested by the
competent Authority of the Indian Embassy. This is admitted by the
Insurance Company also. One fails to understand, therefore, how
the Tribunal could have refused to accept this document, as being
not proved properly.
8. That said, certainly, the salary that late Sulaiman was
drawing in Riyad cannot be automatically compared to what he
would have earned, had he been working as an electrician in India.
Going by the exchange rates of the year 2011 - when the accident
occurred - late Sulaiman would have been earning a shade less than
Rs.1 lakh in Riyad; and 1/3rd of the same, namely Rs.32,000/-, can
safely be taken to be what he would have earned in India, had he
been working here. This figure will have to be then added by
another 10% towards future prospects, since he was only 44 years
at the time of the horrible accident and his unfortunate death.
9. That being concluded, the deduction of 1/4th towards
personal expenses from the income of the deceased is not proper
because he is survived by wife and two children. The deduction,
hence, ought to have been 1/3rd, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802].
10. Moving on, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head 'Funeral Expenses' will certainly have to be revised
to Rs.15,000/- since Pranay Sethi (Supra) authorizes only this;
while another Rs.15,000/- will have to be added as compensation for
'Loss of Estate', since the said precedent also mandates it.
11. However, the submissions of learned Senior Counsel, that
no amounts could have been granted under the head 'Loss of Love
and Affection' certainly has force; though the compensation under
the head 'Loss of Consortium' will have to be enhanced to
Rs.1,20,000/-, reckoning Rs.40,000/- each in favour of the
appellants, as per Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed in the following
manner:
(a) The compensation under the head 'Loss of Dependency' is
enhanced to Rs.39,42,000/-, from Rs.5,04,000/- now awarded by the
Tribunal, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be
Rs.32,000/- per month, with 10% future prospects added to it and
1/3rd deducted towards his personal expenses as per Sarla Verma
(Supra).
(b) The compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses' is
enhanced to R.15,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- now awarded by the
Tribunal, as per Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(c) An additional amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the
head 'Loss of Estate', as per Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(d) The compensation for 'Loss of Consortium' is enhanced to
Rs.1,20,000/-, from Rs.1,00,000/- now awarded by the Tribunal, as
per Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(e) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
'Love and Affection' is deleted.
Consequently, the appellants will be at full liberty to recover the
compensation, as modified by this Court, from the Insurance
Company, along with interest at the rate of 7% (reducing the rate of
interest of 8% granted by the Tribunal, in view of the escalation
granted by this Court), from the date of claim until it is recovered.
They will also be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced
amount as ordered by the Tribunal.
In view of the afore, the sums as fixed above, shall be deposited
by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/1.4
