Kerala High Court

Venu V.Kumar 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. 1457 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.05.2014 IN OPMV NO.1296 OF
2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

    1     VENU V.KUMAR
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O. LATE KUMARAN V.A
    2     P.K.SUNITHA
          AGED 44 YEARS
          W/O. VENU V. KUMAR
    3     ANJU V. KUMAR
          AGED 19 YEARS
          D/O. VENU V. KUMAR, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT
          SARAVANA NERRWA - 235, ANJUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY,
          COCHIN -24.

          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 INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
          ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

    3     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
          KOLKATTA - 700 71 (DELETED)

    4     VYAYALAKSHMI M(DELETED)
          W/O. MARI B, 26, VYAYANILAYAM, ST.THOMAS CHURCH ROAD,
          OOTY, NEELAGIRI, TAMILNADU - 642 110.

    5     ASHOKAN S (DELETED)
          S/O. SUBBAIAH, AKAMATCHIPURAM, ATHANGARAIPATTI, PERIYUR
          TALUK, MADURAI, TAMILNADU - 625 001.
          [R3, R4 and R5 respondents are deleted from the party
 MACA 1457 OF 2015                  2




           array as per order dated 16/6/2022 in IA 1/2022]

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
           SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA 1457 OF 2015                  3




                           J U D G M E N T

The claimants in OP(MV) No.1296 of 2009 on

the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Ernakulam are the appellants herein impugning

the award on the ground of inadequacy of

compensation.

2. Son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of

the 3rd appellant, by name Rahul V. Kumar 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.Rahul V. Kumar and four others

including the driver of the car succumbed to

the injuries. The deceased was a 23 year old

boy pursuing his degree course(BBA) and IATA,

and was doing some part time job also, earning

monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. His parents and

sister 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 23 year old

student doing some part time job also. His

monthly earning in the claim petition was

stated to be 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 also, 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 obviously 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 also, as

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 23. So,

the compensation for loss of dependency could

be re-assessed as Rs.6,80,400/- (3150x12x18).

Learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,24,000/-.

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], appellants 1 and 2 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.

The 3rd appellant being the sister of the

deceased, she is not entitled to get

compensation for 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)
                                              80,000/-
      Loss of
                           75,000/-       (40,000 each to          5,000/-
      consortium
                                          appellants 1 & 2)
      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. The 3rd appellant being the sister of

the deceased learned Tribunal shall disburse