Kerala High Court
Thechiyodan Marakkar vs Suneer M.C on 3 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 3
DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946
MACA NO. 4097 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.08.2015 IN OPMV NO.251 OF 2011 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1
THECHIYODAN MARAKKAR,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, CHEMBRASSERI EAST.P.O.,
CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2
NASEERA,
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.THECHIYODAN MARAKKAR, CHEMBRASSERI
EAST.P.O., CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
SUNEER M.C.,
S/O.SAIDALAVI MANNANGACHALIL, MANNANGACHALIL HOUSE,
KARAKUNNU.P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676 123.
2
ABDURAHIMAN,
S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, 24/284(694), KODAVANDI HOUSE,
PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI COLLEGE.P.O., MANJERI AMSOM,
DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.
MACA 4097/16 2
3
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
JASEELA COMPLEX, BYPASS JUNCTION, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI
AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.
BY ADV C.T.BASHEER FOR R1 AND R2
BY ADV.SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HIS
T MOTOR
ACCIDENT
CLAIMS
APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
03.07.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA 4097/16 3
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in
OP(MV)No.251 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, impugning the award on the ground
of inadequacy of compensation.
2. On 30.10.2010 at 5.10 p.m. while Mr.Muhammed
Jarshath was riding his motorcycle through Manjeri -
Chembrasseri Road, KL-10/P-1001 bus driven by the 1st
respondent,inarashandnegligentmanner,knockedhimdown
andhesustainedfatalinjuriestowhichhesuccumbedafter53
days. He was a 20 year old man doing furniture business
earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. His parents
approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.13,00,000/-. Though learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.13,01,500/-,accordingtotheappellants,itwasnotthejust
compensation to be awarded, and hence this appeal.
3. The 3rd respondent-Insurer admitted the accident as
well as the Policy. According to them, the compensation
MACA 4097/16 4
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and hence it
needs no modification.
4. Now this Court iscalledupontoanswerwhetherthere
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. True that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal was exceeding their
claim. But if it is for awarding just compensation,theTribunal
or even the appellatecourtcanawardamountevenexceeding
the claim.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
though the deceased was a businessman earning monthly
income of Rs.15,000/-, learned Tribunal fixed his notional
income@Rs.5,000/-only.Nodocumentswereproducedbythe
appellants to prove the occupationorincomeofthedeceased.
So learned Tribunal could not be found fault with for not
MACA 4097/16 5
accepting Rs.15,000/- as the income of the deceased.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the
decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC
2951], to say that intheyear2010evenacoolieworkerwas
eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.7,500/-.
Accepting that argument, this Court is inclined to fix his
notionalincome@Rs.7,500/-.Sincehewasbelow40andwas
self employed, 40% addition could have been given towards
future prospects and if so, his income can be fixed @
Rs.10,500/-(7,500+40%).Sincehewasabachelor,50%was
liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the
balance will be Rs.5,250/-. The multiplier applicable is 18. So
the loss of dependency could be assessed as Rs.11,34,000/-
(5,250x12x18).AfterdeductingRs.8,10,000/-alreadyawarded
by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get
Rs.3,24,000/- as enhanced compensationunderthehead'loss
of dependency'.
MACA 4097/16 6
9. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only
Rs.10,000/-. Based on the decision National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16
SCC 680], the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So,
they will get the difference of Rs.5,000/- as enhanced
compensation under the head 'loss of estate'.
10. Towards loss of love and affection, learned Tribunal
awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi's case cited
supra,theappellants,whoaretheparentsofthedeceased,are
entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each, which will come to
Rs.80,000/- in total. So, there is an excess amount of
Rs.20,000/-awardedbytheTribunalunderthathead,andthat
amount is liable to be deducted.
11. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.25,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, they
are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- only and hence Rs.10,000/- is
in excess, and that has to be deducted.
MACA 4097/16 7
12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all
other heads seems to be reasonable and hence it needs no
modification.
Head of claim Amount Amount Amounts ifference to
D
warded by
a awarded in deducted in be drawn as
the Tribunal appeal appeal enhanced
compensation
oss of
L
dependency Rs.8,10,000/- Rs.11,34,000/- Rs.3,24,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/-
oss of love and
L
affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.80,000/- Rs.20,000/-
uneral
F Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.30,000/- Rs.3,29,000/-
Enhanced compensation is Rs.2,99,000/-(3,29,000 -30,000)
13. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get
enhancement of Rs.3,29,000/-, whereas Rs.30,000/- is liable
to be deducted as it is in excess. So, the balance entitled as
enhanced compensation is Rs.2,99,000/-.
14. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit
Rs.2,99,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand only)
MACA 4097/16 8
with 9% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the
date of deposit, (excluding 392 days of delay in filing the
appeal), before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri,
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 equal share, after deducting the
liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee and legal
benefit fund.
Theappealisallowedtotheextentasaboveandnoorder
is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
