Kerala High Court
A.C.Thomas vs M.P.Vijesh on 1 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946
MACA NO. 307 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.09.2018 IN OP(MV)NO.275 OF 2017 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 A.C.THOMAS
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. CHAKKU, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PRANNUR P.O.,
CHOONDAL, THRISSUR 680 502.
2 ELSY THOMAS,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. THOMAS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PRANNUR P.O.,
CHOONDAL, THRISSUR 680 502.
3 LINI.A.T.,
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PRANNUR P.O.,
CHOONDAL, THRISSUR 680 502.
BY ADV SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 M.P.VIJESH
S/O. PADMANABHAN, MANNAMPARAMBATHU HOUSE,
PERINGOLAM P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 580.
2 P.P. SIRAJUDHEEN,
S/O. MUAMMED KOYA, KAVUKKAM, KUZHIYIL HOUSE,
VAVAD P.O., NALLAMKANDY KODUVALLY,
KOZHIKODE 673 572.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, 11ND FLOOR,
PARAPPURATH TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM-679 101
BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 307 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in
O.P(MV)No.275 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, impugning the award on the
ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. On 08.12.2016 one Sri.Linoy Thomas while riding a
motor cycle through Thrissur-Kunnamkulam public road, was
knocked down by KL-57-F-9072 bus driven by the 1 st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained fatal
injuries to which he succumbed on the very next day. He was a
22 year old computer mechanic, earning monthly income of
Rs.20,000/-. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.25 lakh. But learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.7,20,000/- and hence this appeal.
3. First respondent was the driver, 2nd respondent was the
owner and 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending bus.
4. The 3rd respondent - insurer admitted that there is no
dispute with respect to the accident or the policy of the
offending vehicle as on the date of accident. But learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent opposed the prayer for
enhancement, as the compensation awarded, according to him
is just and reasonable and hence it needs no modification.
5. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there
is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned
award warranting interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent - Insurer.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss
of dependancy is arbitrarily low considering the fact that the
deceased was a 22 year old computer mechanic earning
monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. But on going through the
records, it could be seen that no documents were produced by
the appellants to prove the job or income of the deceased. He
would rely on the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR
2011 SC 2951] to say that, even a Coolie worker was eligible
to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.10,500/- in the year
2016. Since there is no document to prove his qualification or
employment, relying on Ramachandrappa's case cited supra,
this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.10,500/-
per month. Since he was aged below 40 and self employed,
40% addition could be given towards future prospects based
on the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], inspite of the
objection raised by learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent that
there is nothing to show that the deceased was having any
regular employment. So the monthly income for assessing loss
of dependancy could be taken as Rs.14,700/- (Rs.10,500/- +
40%). Since he was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards
his personal expenses and the balance would be Rs.7,350/-.
The multiplier applicable is 18. So the compensation for loss
of dependency could be assessed as Rs.15,87,600/-
(Rs.7,350x12x18). After deducting Rs.6,48,000/- already
awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get
Rs.9,39,600/- towards loss of dependency.
8. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
love and affection. Based on Pranay Sethi's case cited supra,
appellants 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased are
eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and
affection. After deducting Rs.40,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards loss of love and affection, appellants 1 and 2
are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- as enhancement, under the head
loss of consortium.
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all
other heads seems to be reasonable, and hence no interference
is warranted.
10. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is
stated in the table given below:-
Head of claim Amount Amount Difference to be
awarded by the awarded in drawn as
Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Compensation Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.15,87,600/- Rs.9,39,600/-
for loss of
dependency
Compensation Rs.80,000/- Rs.40,000/-
for loss of
Consortium
Compensation Rs.40,000/-
for loss of love
and affection
TOTAL Rs.9,79,600/-
11. So the appellants are entitled to get Rs.9,79,600/- as
enhanced compensation.
12. Third respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit
Rs.9,79,600/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of
petition till the date of deposit before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned
Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellants in the
ratio 45:45:10 after deducting their liabilities if any towards
tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
The Appeal is allowed to the extent as above. No order as
to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
MC/2.8
