Kerala High Court
Antony Alias Babu vs Sunny K.Palatty on 12 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 12
DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA,
1946
MACA NO. 668 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.04.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.275 OF 2007 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1
ANTONY ALIAS BABU,
S/O.GEORGE, THATHELY HOUSE, RESIDING AT CHATHELY
HOUSE, PAZHOOKKARA DESOM, ANNALLUR VILLAGE.P.O,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2
ANNIE,
W/O.ANTONY ALIAS BABU, -DO- -DO-
3
JINTO ANTONY,
S/O.ANTONY ALIAS BABU, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND
GUARDIAN FATHER, ANTONY ALIAS BABU.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
SUNNY K.PALATTY,
S/O.KOCHAPPAN, PALLATTY HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA.P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 001.
2
SAIFUDHEEN,
S/O.HUSSAIN, CHOOLAKKADAVIL HOUSE, KOZHIKKADA, PULLUT.P.O,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680664.
3
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD,
VELLANIKKARAN BUILDING, IRINJALAKUDA-680121.
MACA 668 of 2012 2
4
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
ERNAKULAM-682011.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
SRI.A.R.GEORGE, SC, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
HIS
T MOTOR
ACCIDENT
CLAIMS
APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
12.06.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA 668 of 2012 3
J U D G M E N T
The claimants in OP(MV)No.275 of 2007 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, who are the
legal heirs of deceased Jijo, have come up with this appeal,
challenging the award, on the ground of inadequacy of
compensation.
2.An18yearoldboy,namedJijo,metwitharoadtraffic
accident on 23.02.2007 at 7.30 p.m., while he was riding
pillion on a motorcycle through Ashtamichira - Chalakudy
public road. KL-8/V-5547 stage carriage driven by the 2nd
respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, came from
opposite direction, and hit against the motorcycle, and due to
that impact, Sri.Jijo was thrown away, and he sustained fatal
injuries, to which he succumbed, on his way to hospital. He
was a worker in Ronex Confectioners, Pazhookkara, earning
monthly income of Rs.3,300/- as on the date of accident. His
legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.5,31,600/-. But learned Tribunal awarded only
MACA 668 of 2012 4
Rs.2,91,000/- and hence this appeal.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner,driverandInsurer
respectively of the offending stage carriage and the 4th
respondent is the Insurer of the motorcycle, on which the
deceased was pillion riding. The 3rd respondent-Insurer
admitted the Policy ofthestagecarriageasonthedateofthe
accident. But according to them, the 2nd respondent had no
valid driving licence to drive the stage carriage, and hence
there was violation of the Policy conditions.
4.ThoughtheoriginalclaimwasfiledunderSection163A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, learned Tribunal found that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligentdrivingofthe
stage carriage by the 2nd respondent, and Ext.A1 FIR and
Ext.A2 finalreportwerereliedonbytheTribunaltoreachthat
conclusion.SotheclaimwastreatedasoneunderSection166
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. On analysing the facts and evidence, learned Tribunal
found that the 3rd respondent-Insurer was liable to
MACA 668 of 2012 5
compensate the legal heirs of the deceased, but 'pay and
recovery' was ordered in their favour, finding that the 2nd
respondent had no valid driving licence, as on the date of the
accident.
6. In the appeal, the3rdrespondent-Insurerofthestage
carriage as well as the 4th respondent-Insurer of the
motorcycle entered appearance through counsel. No liability
was cast upon the 4th respondent by the Tribunal, and that
finding is not under challenge by any of the parties. The 3rd
respondent-InsureradmittedthePolicy.Accordingtothem,the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable,
and hence it needs no modification.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
though the appellant was earning monthly income of
Rs.3,300/-, learned Tribunal fixed his notional income only @
Rs.2,000/-. Relying on the decision Ramachandrappa v.
MACA 668 of 2012 6
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited [AIR 2011 SC2951],learnedcounselwouldsubmit
that the deceased was eligibletogethisnotionalincomefixed
@Rs.6,000/-permonth,astheaccidentwasintheyear2007.
Since the appellants were claiming monthly income of
Rs.3,300/- only for the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix
hisnotionalincome@Rs.3,300/-asclaimedbythem.Sincehe
was aged below 40 and self employed, 40% addition can be
giventowardsfutureprospects.Sohisincomecouldhavebeen
taken as Rs.4,620/-. Since he was a bachelor, 50% wasliable
tobedeductedtowardshispersonalexpenses.So,thebalance
income would be Rs.2,310/-. The multiplier applicable was 18
as the deceased was 18 years old as on the date of accident.
So the compensation for loss of dependency can be assessed
as Rs.4,98,960/- (2,310x12x18). After deducting
Rs.2,56,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, theappellants
are entitled to get Rs.2,42,960/- as enhanced compensation
under the head 'loss of dependency'.
MACA 668 of 2012 7
9. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.4,000/-. Relyingonthedecision,NationalInsurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16
SCC 680], the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as
funeral expenses, and so they will get the balance amount of
Rs.11,000/- as enhancement towards funeral expenses.
10. Towards loss of consortium, the parents of the
deceased are eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each, based on
Pranay Sethi's case cited supra. So, the compensation for
loss of consortium will come to Rs.80,000/- in total. Then
Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and
affection is liable to be deducted. So, appellants1and2,who
are the parents of the deceased, are entitled to get
Rs.55,000/- as enhancement under the head 'loss of
consortium'.
11. Towards loss of estate,noamountwasseenawarded
bytheTribunal.BasedonPranaySethi'scasecitedsupra,the
appellants are entitled togetRs.15,000/-andso,thisCourtis
MACA 668 of 2012 8
inclined to award that amount towards loss of estate.
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 ifference to
D
warded by
a awarded in be drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
oss of
L
dependency Rs.2,56,000/- Rs.4,98,960/- Rs.2,42,960/-
Funeral expenses Rs.4,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.11,000/-
oss of
L
consortium/ Rs.25,000/- Rs.80,000/- Rs.55,000/-
loss of love and
affection
Loss of estate - - - Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.3,23,960/-
13. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,23,960/-.
14. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,23,960/- (Rupees Three Lakh
TwentyThreeThousandNineHundredandSixtyonly)with7%
interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of
MACA 668 of 2012 9
deposit (excluding68daysofdelayinfilingtheappeal)before
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, within a
periodoftwomonthsfromthedateofreceiptofacopyofthis
judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to
appellants 1 and 2, in equal share, after deducting their
liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee and legal
benefit fund.
15. Learned Tribunal had ordered 'pay and recovery'
directing the 3rd respondent-Insurer to deposit the amount
initially, and then to recover the same from the 1st
respondent-owner, finding that the 2nd respondent-driver had
no valid driving licence at the time of incident. But learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent fairly conceded that, the 2nd
respondent was having valid driving licence to drive transport
vehicle as on the date of accident. Ext.A6 copy of driving
licence particulars of the 2nd respondent/driver was produced
by the appellants beforetheTribunal.Itshowsthathislicence
validity for driving transport vehicles was valid from
MACA 668 of 2012 10
24.10.2005 to 23.10.2008, and subsequently it was renewed
from 24.10.2008 to 23.10.2028. The accident in this case
occurred on 23.02.2007. So, his old licence for driving
transport vehicles was valid during that period. But learned
Tribunal failed to note that fact. So the recovery ordered
against the 1st respondent stands set aside.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no
order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
