Kerala High Court
Nimju vs T.P.Veeran on 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
ST
TUESDAY, THE 21
DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 926 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 07.05.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.860 OF 2012 OF
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1
NIMJU M.,
AGED 22 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SATHYAN, VASU BHAVAN,
MATTUPURATH, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE.
2
PRASANNA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O. ASOKAN, VAZHAYUR, POST AZHINHILAM, MALAPPURAM.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
T.P.VEERAN,
S/O. MUHAMMED, THALEKKARA PANDAYIL HOUSE,
UNNIYATHIPARAMBA, VALIYAPARAMBA POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673637.
2
ASHRAF,
S/O. BEERAN, VALAYAMKOTTIL HOUSE, PULPATTA POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676126.
MACA 926 of 2014 2
3
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
M SONS ARCADE, 4TH FLOOR, CHEROOTTY ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-673001.
R3 BY ADV.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), STANDING COUNSEL
R3 BY ADV.P.JACOB MATHEW, STANDING COUNSEL
HIS
T MOTOR
ACCIDENT
CLAIMS
APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
21.05.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA 926 of 2014 3
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP(MV)No.860 of
2012 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kozhikode, impugning the award on the ground ofinadequacy
of compensation.
2. Sri.Sathyan,thehusbandofthe1stappellantandson
of the 2nd appellant, met with a road traffic accident on
25.02.2012, at 9.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle
through Bypass road near Bhavana bus stop. He wasknocked
down by KL-10/AH-5343 lorry, driven by the 2nd respondent,
in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained serious injuries
and died on the same day, due to the gravity of the injuries
sufferedbyhim. Hewasa28yearoldcoolie,earningmonthly
income of Rs.12,000/-.HislegalheirsapproachedtheTribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.6,37,000/-, and hence this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the offending
vehicle, 2nd respondent was itsdriverandthe3rdrespondent
was its Insurer. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The
MACA 926 of 2014 4
3rd respondent-Insurer entered appearance through counsel
and admitted the Policy.
4. Now this Court iscalledupontoanswerwhetherthere
is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned
award warranting interference by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contendthat
though the deceased was a coolie earning monthly income of
Rs.12,000/-, the Tribunal fixed his notional income @
Rs.4,500/-. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC
2951], to contend that in the year 2012, the notional
income of a coolie might have been fixed @ Rs.8,500/-.
Relyingonthatdecision,thisCourtisinclinedtofixhisnotional
income @ Rs.8,500/- per month.Moreover,sincehewasaged
below 40, he was eligible to get 40% addition towards future
MACA 926 of 2014 5
prospects. Ifso,hismonthlyincomecouldhavebeenfixedas
Rs.11,900/- (8,500 + 40%). Since he was having two
dependents ⅓ had to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. So, the balance would come to Rs.7,933/-. The
multiplier applicable is 17 as he was aged only 28. So,
compensationforlossofdependencycouldhavebeenassessed
as Rs.16,18,332/- (7,933x12x17). The Tribunal already
awarded Rs.6,12,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.
After deducting thatamount,theappellantsareentitledtoget
Rs.10,06,332/- as enhanced compensation under the head
'loss of dependency'.
7. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.8,000/-. As per the decision National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16
SCC 680],theappellantsareentitledtogetRs.15,000/-. So,
they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.7,000/-
under the head 'funeral expenses'.
8. Towards loss of consortium, learned Tribunal awarded
onlyRs.10,000/-.RelyingonPranaySethi'scasecitedsupra,
MACA 926 of 2014 6
they are eligible to get Rs.40,000/- each, amounting to
Rs.80,000/- in total. After deducting Rs.10,000/- already
awarded, they are entitled to get the balance amount of
Rs.70,000/-.
9. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only
Rs.5,000/-. Based on Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, they
areeligibletogetRs.15,000/-.So,theyareentitled toreceive
the balance Rs.10,000/- as enhancement underthehead'loss
of estate'.
10. The compensation awarded under all other heads
seems to be reasonable and hence it needs no modification.
Head of claim mount
A mount
A Difference to be
awarded by awarded in drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
oss of
L Rs.6,12,000/- Rs.16,18,332/- Rs.10,06,332/-
dependency
Funeral expenses Rs.8,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.7,000/-
oss of
L Rs.10,000/- Rs.80,000/- Rs.70,000/-
consortium
Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.10,93,332/-
MACA 926 of 2014 7
11. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get
Rs.10,93,332/-(10,06,332 + 7,000 + 70,000 + 10,000) as
enhanced compensation.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants wouldsubmitthat
the 1st appellant, who was the wife of the deceased, is
remarried. Even then, she is eligible to get compensation on
the death of her husband. Learned Tribunal apportioned the
compensation between the claimants in the ratio2:4.Learned
counsel for the appellants expressed no objection in retaining
that ratio with respect to the enhanced compensation also.
13. Hence, the 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to
deposittheenhancedcompensationofRs.10,93,332/-(Rupees
TenLakhNinetyThreeThousandThreeHundredandThirtyTwo
only)with8%interestperannum,fromthedateofpetitiontill
the date of deposit (excluding 76 days of delay in filing the
appeal) before the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kozhikode, with in a period of two months, from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall
disbursethecompensationamounttoappellants1and2inthe
MACA 926 of 2014 8
ratio2:4,afterdeductingtheliabilities,ifany,oftheappellants
towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit funds etc.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no
order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
