Kerala High Court

K.B.Brooni vs Fathima on 21 May, 2024

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
      TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       MACA NO. 1444 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.05.2014 IN OPMV NO.1222 OF
2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
     1     K.B.BROONI
           AGED 50 YEARS
           S/O. BONIFUS
     2     JESSY BROONI
           AGED 43 YEARS
           W/O. K.B BROONI, BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT
           23/1448, KARIMANCHERY, MOOLAMKUZHI, COCHIN -2.
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.RAHUL SASI
           SMT.NEETHU PREM

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     FATHIMA
          5/305 VALIYA PEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O.,
          COCHIN - 682 030.
    2     THE NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY LTD
          ERNAKULAM - 682 011.
    3     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD(DELETED)
          KOLKATTA - 700 071.
    4     VYAAYALAKSHMI M(DELETED)
          W/O. MARI B, 26, VYAYANILAYAM, ST.THOMAS CHURCH ROAD,
          OOTY, NEELAGIRI, TAMILNADU - 625 001.
    5     ASHOKAN S(DELETED)
          S/O. SUBBAIAH, AKAMATCHIPURAM ATHANGARAIPATTI, PERIYUR
          TALUK, MADURAI, TAMILNADU - 625 001.

          BY ADV.SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR-R2

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO.1444 OF 2015                2




                            J U D G M E N T

The claimants in OP(MV) No.1222 of 2009 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Ernakulam are the appellants herein

impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy

of compensation.

2. Son of the appellants, by name Bonifes

Antony @ Gibson died in a road traffic accident

occurred on 15/2/2009 at 2.30 am, while he was

travelling in KL-07/BH 2297 car through

Coimbatore-Mettupalayam road. The car dashed

against a lorry which was parked on the left

side of the road due to the rash and negligent

driving of the car by its driver. As a result

of the hit, Sri.Bonifes Antony and four others

including the driver of the car succumbed to

the injuries. The deceased was a 20 year old

boy pursuing his degree course, and doing some

part time job also earning monthly income of

Rs.4,500/-. His parents approached the Tribunal

claiming compensation of Rs.5 Lakh, but learned

Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,29,000/-, and hence

this appeal.

3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the

offending car and the 2nd respondent was its

insurer.

4. The 2nd respondent insurance company

entered appearance, and admitted the policy.

5. Now this Court is called upon to answer

whether there is any irregularity, illegality

or impropriety in the impugned award warranting

interference by this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants

and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

Insurance company.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that the deceased was a 20 year old

student doing some part time job also. His

monthly earning as per the claim petition was

Rs.4,500/-. Relying on the decision

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited, [AIR 2011

SC 2951], learned counsel for the appellants

would submit that he was eligible to get his

monthly income fixed @ Rs.7,000/-, and apart

from that, he was eligible for 40% addition

towards future prospects. Learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent-Insurer would submit that

since the income claimed in the claim petition

was only Rs.4,500/-, learned Tribunal ought not

have gone beyond that. Learned counsel for the

appellants relying on the decision V. Mekala v.

M Malathi and Another [(2014) 11 SCC 178] and

Minu Rout and Another v. Satya Pradyumna

Mohapatra and Others [2013 KHC 4701] would

submit that for awarding just and reasonable

compensation, there is no bar in fixing monthly

income exceeding the claim in the claim

petition. Moreover, in V.Mekala's case cited

supra, notional income of a student aged 16

years, was fixed by the Apex Court @

Rs.10,000/-. On going through that decision, it

could be seen that a brilliant girl aged 16

years suffered 70% permanent disability. In the

case on hand, there is nothing to show the

academic brilliance of the deceased, and his

legal heirs were claiming monthly income of

Rs.4,500/- for him. The accident was in the

year 2009 and the total compensation claimed by

the appellants was Rs.5,00,000/- and the

Tribunal awarded Rs.4,29,000 with 8% interest

from the date of petition. As held by the Apex

Court, in the celebrated decision Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT

802 (SC)], 'Just Compensation' is adequate

compensation which is fair and equitable, on

the facts and circumstances of the case, to

make good the loss suffered as a result of the

wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying

the well settled principles relating to award

of compensation. It is not intended to be a

bonanza, largesse or source of profit. In the

case on hand the notional income fixed by the

Tribunal @ Rs.3,000/- is at the lower side. In

the appeal memorandum also, their case is that

though the deceased was earning monthly income

of Rs.4,500/-, the tribunal arbitrarily fixed

the notional income @ Rs.3,000/-. So this Court

is inclined to take his monthly income as

Rs.4,500/- as claimed by the appellants. He was

eligible to get 40% addition also towards

future prospects, since he was aged below 40.

If so, his monthly income could have been taken

as Rs.6,300/-. Since he was a bachelor, 50% was

liable to be deducted, towards his personal

expenses. So the balance income would be

Rs.3,150/-. The multiplier applicable is 18 as

he was aged only 20. So, the compensation for

loss of dependency could have been assessed as

Rs.6,80,400/-. Learned Tribunal awarded only

Rs.3,24,000/-, under the head loss of

dependency. So the appellants are eligible to

get the balance amount of Rs.3,56,400/- as

enhancement under the head loss of dependency.

8. Towards loss of love and affection,

learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.75,000/-. As

per the decision National Insurance Company

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC

680], the appellants are eligible to get

Rs.40,000/- each amounting to Rs.80,000/- in

total. So they are eligible to get the balance

amount of Rs.5,000/- as enhanced compensation.

under the head loss of consortium.

9. Towards loss of estate, no amount was

awarded by the Tribunal. Going by Pranay

Sethi's case (cited supra), the appellants are

entitled to get Rs.15,000/-, under the head

loss of estate.

10. The compensation awarded under all other

heads seems to be reasonable and hence it needs

no modification.

11. The enhanced compensation awarded in this

appeal is stated in the table below:-

                              Amount                Amount
          Head of claim                                             Difference to be
                           awarded by the          awarded in
                                                                  drawn as enhanced
                              Tribunal               appeal
                                                                     compensation

       Loss of                                  6,80,400/-
                               3,24,000/-                              3,56,400/-
       dependency                             (3150x12x18)
       Love of                                   80,000/-
                               75,000/-                                 5,000/-
       consortium                             (40,000 each)
       Loss of estate             ---             15,000/-               15,000/-
                                               TOTAL                   3,76,400/-

12. So the appellants are entitled to get

enhanced compensation of Rs.3,76,400/- with 8%

interest per annum.

13. The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed

to deposit the enhanced compensation of

Rs.3,76,400/- with 8% interest per annum, from

the date of petition till the date of deposit,

before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,

Ernakulam, 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