Kerala High Court
Benny Sebastian vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 8 November, 2024
MACA No.1241 of 2019 1 2024:KER:83296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 1241 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.09.2018 IN OPMV NO.516 OF 2017 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , TALIPARAMBA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BENNY SEBASTIAN,AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.DEVASIA, KAREEKUNNEL HOUSE,
PALAVAYAL.P.O, KASARAGOD.
2 LISSY BENNY,AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.BENNY, KAREENKUNNEL HOUSE,
PALAVAYAL.P.O., KASARAGOD.
BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/3RD RESPONDENT:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MARINA SHOPPING CENTRE NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670141.
BY ADV SRI.N.S.NAJEEB
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1241 of 2019 2 2024:KER:83296
P.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
-------------------------------
MACA No.1241 of 2019
----------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed on
26.9.2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba in
OP(MV) No.516 of 2017, by the petitioners therein, claiming that the
amount awarded under various heads is insufficient.
2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of
the death of Ajal Benny (deceased), the son of the petitioners.
According to the appellants, on 29.04.2017 at about 3.30 a.m. while
the deceased was traveling by an Omni Van from Kannur to Pulavayal
when the Van reached near Nadukani, a goods vehicle (offending
vehicle) hit the Omni Van in which the deceased was traveling, Ajal
Benny succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself.
3. As there is no challenge against the findings of the Tribunal
regarding the cause of the motor accident, the nature of injuries
suffered, the liability of the respondent, etc, the discussion hereunder
MACA No.1241 of 2019 3 2024:KER:83296
is limited to the essential aspects only.
4. Heard both sides and perused the available records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
Tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation under the head 'loss of
dependency' at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- and instead, the Tribunal
ought to have followed the law laid down by this Court in the judgment
in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Assainar [2019 (4) KLT
39], wherein it is held that if the accident occurs during the period
2017-2018, the dependency compensation to be taken as Rs.99,000/-,
and if so, when applying the multiplier '15', which is applicable to a
minor aged below 15, the compensation would come at Rs.9,90,000/-,
after deducting 1/3rd towards 'personal expenses'. Learned counsel
further contended that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards
'pain and suffering' as well as 'loss of estate', but the appellants are
entitled to get a reasonable amount towards 'pain and sufferings',
following the dictum laid down by this Court in The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Martin Xavier, as per judgment dated
10.10.2024 in MACA No.345 of 2021. The appellants also contended
that they are also entitled to get a reasonable amount under the head
'loss of estate' as well.
6. According to the learned counsel, no amount more than
MACA No.1241 of 2019 4 2024:KER:83296
Rs.80,000/- could have been awarded to the appellants on that count.
As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants this Court has held in
Assainar (supra), paragraph 18 of the said judgment is extracted below:-
"18. Once it is accepted that the multiplier to be applied while
computing compensation for dependency is '15' and the mode of
assessment is as provided for in the Second Schedule to the Act,
viz, that one third shall only be deducted from the notional
income to determine the multiplicand, as it is found that the
compensation payable under the un-amended Section 163A is
Rs.2,40,000/-, it can be seen, though it is provided in the Second
Schedule that the notional income of a non-earning person shall
be reckoned at Rs.15,000/-, the notional income in respect of
children below the age of 15 is actually contemplated to be
reckoned at Rs.24,000/-. In other words, having regard to the
fact that Section 163A is a provision introduced only with effect
from 14.11.1994, and having regard to the compensation
granted by various courts in cases involving death of children
during the said period, I am of the view that Rs.24,000/- can be
fixed, except in exceptional cases where a different yardstick has
to be followed, as the notional income of the children died in
accidents till the end of the financial year 1995-96. But the said
amount cannot be reckoned as the notional income in cases
arising in the subsequent years, as it is common knowledge that
rupee value has come down drastically thereafter and the effect
of inflation in the subsequent years has therefore, to be off-
settled. In Chetan Malhotra & Others v. Lala Ram & Others [CDJ
2016 DHC 865], the Delhi High Court has made an endeavor to
MACA No.1241 of 2019 5 2024:KER:83296
bring in uniformity in the compensation granted in cases
involving death of children. In the said case, it was found that
having regard to the fluctuating trends in consumer price index,
the cost inflation index determined and notified by the Ministry of
Finance in Government of India under Section 48 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, for each financial year would be a better method
to offset the effect of inflation on the real value of money. The
view expressed in the said case appears to be sound and can be
accepted. A table showing the cost inflation index notified by the
Government of India from time to time, the corresponding
money value for Rs.24,000/- applying the cost inflation index up
to the year 2018-19 and the nearest thousand of the money
value arrived at, is furnished hereunder for ready reference :
SCHEDULE 2
Value to
Cost Inflation Cost Inflation
Sl.No Financial Year Value nearest
Index New Index
Thousand
1 1995-96 281 24000 24000
2 1996-97 305 26050 26000
3 1997-98 331 28270 28000
4 1998-99 351 29979 30000
5 1999-00 389 33224 33000
6 2000-01 406 34676 35000
7 2001-02 426 100 36384 36000
8 2002-03 105 38204 38000
9 2003-04 109 36659 40000
10 2004-05 113 41114 41000
11 2005-06 117 42570 43000
12 2006-07 122 44389 44000
MACA No.1241 of 2019 6 2024:KER:83296
13 2007-08 129 46936 47000
14 2008-09 137 49847 50000
15 2009-10 148 53849 54000
16 2010-11 167 60762 61000
17 2011-12 184 66947 67000
18 2012-13 200 72769 73000
19 2013-14 220 80046 80000
20 2014-15 240 87322 87000
21 2015-16 254 92416 92000
22 2016-17 264 96055 96000
23 2017-18 272 98965 99000
24 2018-19 280 101876 102000
In other words, the notional income of children died after the
financial year 1995-96 can be determined applying the above
table and I have no doubt, the same would certainly provide
uniformity in the awards."
7. The method adopted by this Court in the said case can be
applied in the present case. In that case, the appellants are entitled to
get the compensation of Rs.9,90,000/- towards 'loss of dependency',
after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. There is no dispute
as to the multiplier applicable in this case as '15'. (99000x15x2/3).
8. It is also just and proper to fix Rs.15,000/- under the heads
'pain and suffering, and 'loss of estate', and if the amount of
compensation granted in excess is deducted [Rs.1,00,000 -
(Rs.40,000+40000)] the appellants are entitled to get an additional
MACA No.1241 of 2019 7 2024:KER:83296
amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore the appellants are entitled to get an
additional amount of Rs.6,90,000+10000=7,00,000)
9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed as
follows:
The appellants are entitled to get additional compensation under the
following heads:-
1. Loss of dependency - Rs.6,90,000/-
2. Loss of estate - Rs.10,000/-
----------------
Total Rs.7,00,000/-
==========
The impugned award is modified only to the above extent.
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE
dlk 8.11.2024
