Kerala High Court
Beeran vs Muhammed Illyas on 31 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
MACA NO. 2311 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1315/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BEERAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.IMBICHALI, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.
2 AYISHABI
AGED 24 YEARS
W/O.BEERAN, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.
3 FATHIMA
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.BEERAN, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.
4 MUHAMMED
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.BEERAN, CHETTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
P.O.KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.
5 AMINA
AGED 20 YEARS
W/O.FAIZAL, THAZHE KALAMPARAMBATH HOUSE,
P.O.POOVATTUPARAMBU, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED ILLYAS
AGE & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOOWN,
ERANHOTTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.VELLALASSERRY,
REC, KOZHIKODE. - 673 601.
MACA 2311/14
..2..
2 AHAMMED MUNEER P.
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.KUTTY HASSAN, RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE,
P.O.VELLALASSERY, NIT, KOZHIKODE-673601.
3 THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.
CHAIRSMAC, GROUND FLOOR, 6/845 YMCA ROAD,
KOZHIKODE - 673 017
BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
SMT.DHANYA BABU-SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 2311/14
..3..
JUDGMENT
The parents and sisters of Ali - who was killed in a road
accident on 09.01.2010, when the motor cycle he was riding
was hit by the offending vehicle driven in a rash and negligent
manner - has filed this appeal, impugning the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kozhikode ("Tribunal" for short) in OP(MV)No.1315/2010 filed
by them, on the ground that it is inadequate.
2. Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan - learned counsel for the
appellants, argued that the primary reason why the
compensation has been fixed low by the Tribunal is because, it
has reckoned the notional income of the deceased to be a
mere Rs.3,000/-, even though there is evidence to show that
he was a Computer Mechanic, earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
He then pointed out that, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the heads 'Funeral Expenses' and 'Loss of
Estate' is exiguously low; while no amount has been granted
under the head 'Loss of Consortium', even though this was
mandatory as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
MACA 2311/14
..4..
Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] . He thus prayed that
this appeal be allowed.
3. Smt.Dhanya Babu - learned Standing Counsel for
the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted
reckoning of the notional income of the deceased by the
Tribunal is without error, as there is absolutely no evidence on
record to prove either his avocation or his stated income. She
added that, in fact, the learned Tribunal has granted
compensation under the heads 'Pain and Sufferings' and 'Loss
of Love and Affection', which is impermissible, going by
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780]. She thus prayed that
this appeal be dismissed.
4. I have considered the afore submissions on the
touchstone of the evidence and documents on record - copies
of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned
counsel for the parties with the express consent that they can
be acted upon by this Court without dispute.
5. On the question of notional income of the appellant,
I find favour with the submissions of Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan
MACA 2311/14
..5..
because, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13
SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has postulated that,
even in the case of a person who is a 'Coolie', or with
unascertainable income, in the year 2010 - when the accident
occurred - the minimum figure to be reckoned as notional
income is Rs.7,500/-. I see no reason why the Tribunal has
denied this amount; even though I am in favour with it in
holding that the avocation and income of the deceased has not
been properly proved.
6. The notional income being so fixed, since the
deceased was only 20 years at the time of the accident, the
appellants are certainly entitled to have 40% of his income
added as future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi (supra). The
multiplier to be adopted, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802], is '18' and this
has been incorrectly reckoned by the Tribunal to be '13',
presumably because it has gone by the age of the parents and
not that of the deceased.
7. That said, in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble
MACA 2311/14
..6..
Supreme Court has mandated that a minimum amount of
Rs.15,000/- each be awarded under the heads 'Funeral
Expenses' and 'Loss of Estate'. The appellants are entitled to
the same.
8. Finally, on the question of 'Loss of Consortium',
again, Pranay Sethi (supra), makes it mandatory that an
amount of Rs.40,000/- each be awarded to the parents, as
parental consoritium, though it may not be eligible to other two
appellants, who are the sisters of the deceased.
9. That said, however, the submission of Smt.Dhanya
Babu, that no amounts could have been granted under the
heads 'Pain and Sufferings' and 'Loss of Love and Affection' is
on firm ground because, Satwinder Kaur (supra) declares so.
In the afore circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed,
in the following manner:
a. The compensation under the head 'Loss of
Dependency' is enhanced to Rs.11,34,000/-, from Rs.2,34,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal, reckoning the notional income of the
deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month, with 40% future
prospects added to it and one half deducted as personal
MACA 2311/14
..7..
expenses, since he was a bechelor, as per Sarla Verma
(supra).
b. The compensation under the head 'Funeral
Expenses' is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.3,000/- as per
Pranay Sethi (supra).
c. The compensation under the head 'Loss of Estate'
is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- as per Pranay
Sethi (supra).
d. An additional amount of Rs.80,000/- is awarded as
compensation for 'Loss of Consortium' to appellant Nos. 1 and
2, who are the parents of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi
(supra).
e. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the heads 'Pain and Sufferings' and 'Loss of Love and Affection'
is deleted, as per Satwinder Kaur (supra)
In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal will remain unaltered.
Needless to say, while calculating interest on the amount
enhanced by this Court, a period of 1037 days - being the
delay in filing this Appeal - shall stand excluded.
MACA 2311/14
..8..
Consequently, the appellant will be entitled to recover the
compensation, as enhanced by this Court from the Insurance
Company, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, as
ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is
realised. The appellant will also be entitled to proportionate
costs as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced amounts.
In view of the afore, the amount 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
ACR
MACA 2311/14
..9..
APPENDIX OF MACA 2311/2014
APPELLANT EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 MEMO DATED 27.5.2014 ISSUED BY
ADV.RASHMI.K.V. TO SRI.SANTOSH
KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK
ANNEXURE A2 REPLY ISSUED BY SRI.SANTOSH
KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK DATED
30.5.14
ANNEXURE A3 LETTER ISSUED TO SRI.SANTOSH
KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK BY
ADV.RASHMI.K.V. DATED 2.6.14
ANNEXURE A4 MEMO ISSUED BY ADV.ANILL THOMAS TO
SRI.SANTOSH KUMAR.K.P., ADVOCATE CLERK
DATED 3.6.14
ANNEXURE A5 LETTER ISSUED BY ADV.ANIL THOMAS TO
THE REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 4.6.14
ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT OF THE LAWYER AT TRIBUNAL
