Kerala High Court
P.A.Saraswathi Amma vs Rajesh.M on 4 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
MACA NO. 1933 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.01.2013 IN OPMV NO.118 OF 2007 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS:
1 P.A.SARASWATHI AMMA
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.LATE SAJEEV, RESIDING AT VK HOUSE, MUTHUKUTTY, CHEMBILODE
P.O., MOWANCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT
2 P.K.DEEPA
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.LATE SAJEEV, SREE PADMAM, NEAR PETROL PUMP, VELAM P.O.,
MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 P.K.ADITHYA SAJEEV
S/O.LATE SAJEEV, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND
P.K.DEEPA 2ND APPELLANT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.NAZAR
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RAJESH.M.
S/O.SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR, MURIKKANCHERY HOUSE, PERUMANCHERY P.O.,
CHERUPPAZHASSI, VIA MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT
2 M.P.SATHEESH KUMAR
S/O.M.V.KUNJAPPA, KAMALALAYAM, P.O.NARATAH, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, MAREENA SHOPPING COMPLEX N.H, THALIPPARAMPA, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA. No. 1933 of 2014
..2..
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
=====================
M.A.C.A. No. 1933 of 2014
========================
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 04th day of April, 2024
This appeal is at the instance of the legal heirs of deceased
P A Sajeev, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on
09.11.2006, challenging inadequacy of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Deceased Sajeev was a police constable, and on
09.11.2006 while he was travelling in a jeep near Narath
Alinkeezhil bus stop, KL-13B/5736 mini lorry driven by the 1st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
jeep and Sri. Sajeev suffered fatal injuries thereby. He was rushed
to AKG Memorial Hospital, Kannur, and within few hours, he
..3..
breathed his last. He was a police man drawing monthly salary of
Rs.8,299/- as on the date of accident. His legal heirs, i.e., wife,
child and mother approached the Tribunal claiming compensation
of Rs.12,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.14,82,010/- which was even exceeding their claim, as it was
found to be the 'just' compensation.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 though entered appearance before the
Tribunal, no written statement was filed by them. The 3 rd
respondent insurer contested the case, but admitted the policy.
4. In the appeal, notice to respondents 1 and 2 were
dispensed with, as the 3rd respondent insurer entered appearance,
and admitted the policy.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer.
6. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that
the appeal itself is not maintainable, as the appellants were
awarded compensation exceeding their claim. But learned
counsel for the appellants would submit that, in fact they wanted
..4..
to amend their claim before the Tribunal, but learned Tribunal
finding that, it will lead to further delay, that request was not
entertained. But, the Tribunal awarded compensation exceeding
their claim, as it was the 'just' compensation to be awarded on
the death of a 39 year old police constable.
7. When the appeal is taken up for hearing, learned counsel
for the appellants would submit that, the appellants were not
given proper compensation under the head loss of consortium,
loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. So, they suffered a legal
grievance, and they were entitled to get compensation under the
conventional heads in tune with the decision National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC
680], and hence their appeal is legally maintainable. On going
through the impugned award, it could be seen that the appellants
were not given compensation under the conventional heads as
stipulated in Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, and so, this court is
of the view that the appeal is maintainable.
8. The appellants are the mother, wife and child of the
..5..
deceased. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, each of
them are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each. 10% addition also is
given for the lapse of three years, and so they are entitled to get
Rs.44,000/- each. So the total amount will come to Rs.1,32,000/-.
But, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection which amounts to
Rs.75,000/- in total has to be deducted, and so the balance
amount entitled under the head loss of consortium is Rs.57,000/-.
9. Under the head loss of estate, only Rs.5,000/- was
awarded by the Tribunal. Going by Pranay Sethi's case cited
supra, they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-.
For funeral expenses also they are entitled to get balance amount
of Rs.5,000/- based on that decision.
10. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent pointed out that
the deceased succumbed to the injuries within hours of the
accident. But the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards towards
pain and suffering. Since that being a personal claim for pain
and suffering, relying on the decision Sarla Verma v. Delhi
..6..
Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 SC], the legal heirs
are not entitled to claim compensation for pain and suffering of
the deceased. So Rs.20,000/- awarded under that head is liable to
be deducted.
11. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is
given in the table below:-
SL. No Head of Amount Amount Amounts Differenc
claim awarded awarded deducted e to be
by the in appeal in appeal drawn as
Tribunal enhanced
compens
ation
1 Loss of 30,000/-
consortium ..... 57,000/-
2 Loss of love 45,000/- 1,32,000/-
and affection
3 Loss of estate 5,000/- 15,000/- ...... 10,000/-
4 Funeral 10,000/- 15,000/- ...... 5,000/-
expenses
......
5 Pain and 20,000/- 20,000/- ......
suffering
Total 20,000/- 72,000/-
12. So the appellants, are entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.52,000/- (72,000 - 20,000).
..7..
13. The 3rd respondent Insurance company is directed to
deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.52,000/- in the bank
account of the appellants with 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 270 days of
delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit shall be
made in the ratio 10:45:45. The deposit must be in terms of the
directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated
06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated
07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants
towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above and no order
as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
RMV
