Kerala High Court
Sheeja vs The Divisional Manager, ... 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. 1968 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.1711/2012 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANTS:
1 SHEEJA
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 39 YEARS,PANAYAMCHERRIL,
PULIYOORVANCHI NORTH,THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2 MUTHU BEEVI
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O. KHADER KUNJU, AGED 60 YEARS,PANAYAMCHERRIL,
PULIYOORVANCHI NORTH,THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3 ABINAS SHANAVAS
AGED 15 YEARS
S/O. SHANAVAS,PANAYAMCHERRIL, PULIYOORVANCHI
NORTH,THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
(MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT)
4 ADINAN SHANAVAS
AGED 11 YEARS, S/O. SHANAVAS,PANAYAMCHERRIL,
PULIYOORVANCHI NORTH,THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE
1ST APPELLANT)
5 ALIYA SHANAVAS
AGED 8 YEARS, D/O. SHANAVAS,PANAYAMCHERRIL,
PULIYOORVANCHI NORTH,THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
THE 1ST APPELLANT)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.RENY ANTO
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 001
MACA NO. 1968 OF 2017 2
BY ADV SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)
SRI.TAPAS VARMA-SC
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. 1968 OF 2017 3
JUDGMENT
The legal heirs of Shanavas - who unfortunately killed in a road
accident on 05.04.2012, when the Motor Cycle he was riding was
collided into by the offending vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent
manner - assail the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal - III, Kollam ('Tribunal' for short) in
O.P(MV)No.1711 of 2012, on the ground that it is inadequate.
2. Interestingly, Smt.Anjana Kannath - learned counsel for the
appellants, does not assail the income fixed by the Tribunal in favour
of the deceased, but argues that the compensation awarded by it
under various other heads, particularly 'Loss of Consortium', is
exiguous. She thus prays that appeal be allowed; adding that the
sum granted by the Tribunal for 'Bystanders Expenses' is also low,
because the deceased had been hospitalized for 34 days, prior to his
unfortunate demise.
3. Sri.Tapas Varma - learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance Company in response, argued that the computations
adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the compensation are without
error. He added that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in
fact, is impermissible under various heads, including 'Loss of Love
and Affection', because, in United India Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780], it has
been mandated that such an amount could not have been offered,
after the compensation for 'Loss of Dependency' had been awarded,
because the former subsumes into the latter. He thus prayed that
this appeal be dismissed.
4. I have considered the afore rival submissions and have also
gone through the evidence on record - copies of which have been
handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties,
with the express consent that it can be acted upon by this Court
without dispute.
5. As I have said above, the only aspect in dispute in this case
is as to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads
'Loss of Consortium' and 'Bystanders Expenses'. It must also be
borne in mind that the Insurance Company has not come up in
appeal, though an attempt has been made by Sri.Tapas Varma to
argue that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under some of
the heads is impermissible, including 'Loss of Estate' and 'Funeral
Expenses'.
6. Coming to the question of 'Loss of Consortium', it is without
doubt that National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
[2017 (4) KLT 662], mandates that Rs.40,000/- each be awarded
to the appellants, since they are the wife, children and mother of the
deceased. Obviously, an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs becomes eligible to
them under that head.
7. As regards the assertion of Sri.Tapas Varma that no amount
under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection' could have been
granted, I find force in it because, Satwinder Kaur (Supra)
mandates so.
8. It is also on record, particularly through the medical
evidence, that the deceased was hospitalized for 34 days, before he
unfortunately succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.6,800/- towards 'Bystander Expenses', reckoning
Rs.200/- for each day of hospitalization. Even going by the fiscal
standards of the year 2012 - when the accident occurred - I am of
the view that an amount of Rs.400/- per day would have had to be
reckoned. That said, I notice that the learned Tribunal has only
awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head 'Loss of Estate', while Pranay
Sethi (Supra) mandates a minimum of Rs.15,000/- under that head.
It is true that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
head 'Funeral Expenses' is also more than Rs.15,000/-, which is the
maximum authorized in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Resultantly this appeal is partly allowed in the following
manner:
(a) The compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium' is
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-, from Rs.1,00,000/-, as awarded by the
Tribunal.
(b) The compensation under the head 'Bystanders Expenses' is
enhanced to Rs.13,600/-, from Rs.6,800/-, reckoning Rs.400/- per day
as the expenses for 34 days of hospitalization.
(c) The compensation under the head 'Loss of Estate is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.10,000/-, as per Pranay Sethi
(Supra).
(d) The compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses' is
reduced to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.25,000/-, as per Pranay Sethi
(Supra).
(e) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
'Loss of Love and Affection' is deleted, as per Satwinder Kaur
(Supra).
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 9% as awarded by the
Tribunal, 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.
Needless to say, while calculating interest on the amounts
enhanced by this Court, a period of 111 days - being the delay in
filing this appeal - shall stand excluded.
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/30.3
