Kerala High Court
Baby Girija vs M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd on 8 November, 2024
Object 4
1
2
3
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :1
2024:KER:83016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 3396 OF 2016
AWARD DATED 12.08.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.1243 OF 2013 OF IV ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T., KOLLAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BABY GIRIJA,
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, KALATHIPACHA,
VELAMANOOR P.O., PARAIPALLY, KOLLAM.
2 GIREESH
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, KALATHIPACHA,
VELAMANOOR P.O., PARAIPALLY, KOLLAM.
3 HAREESH
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, KALATHIPACHA,
VELAMANOOR P.O., PARAIPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.RENY ANTO
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
D.O.X, HERO HONDA VERTICAL, 10-106. BMC HOUSE CONNAUGHT
PLACE, NEW DELHI-I (INSURER OF MOTOR BIKE WITH REG. NO. KL-02-
AF-9427) POLICY, NO. 35100731126202697122 VALID FROM 10.1.2013
TO 09.1.2014)
BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.11.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :2
2024:KER:83016
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 3396 of 2016
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024.
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P (MV) No. 1243 of 2013 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam.
2. The appellants are the legal heirs of Sri. Govinda pilla who died
in a motor accident on 01.03.2013. While the deceased was walking
along the western road margin of Thiruvananthapuram-Kollam National
Highway towards south, motor bike driven by the first respondent in a
rash and negligent manner hit him. The deceased who sustained serious
injuries died on the next day while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
The 1st respondent is also the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2 nd
respondent is the insurer.
3. At the time of trial, Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked from the
side of the appellants and no evidence was adduced from the side of the
respondents.
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :3
2024:KER:83016
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first
respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,96,300/- to the
appellants.
5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation on
the ground that the Tribunal has not fixed the monthly income of the
deceased correctly and also failed to grant compensation for future
prospects. It is also argued that the compensation granted by the
Tribunal on other heads are also on the lower side and therefore,
interference in appeal is required.
6. Heard Sri. Pratheesh P., the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the
Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- per
month and the same is on the lower side. The accident in this case
occurred in 2013. The principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :4
2024:KER:83016
Court in the decisions in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq
and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027], shows that even in
the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker
has to be fixed as Rs.4500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the
year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be
reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. Considering the facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that the monthly income of the
deceased can be calculated by adopting the said method and therefore,
the monthly income of the deceased in the year 2013 can be fixed as
Rs.9000/-.
8. The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and
Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that an addition of 10%
of the established income can be made towards future prospects where
the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years and that the benefit
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :5
2024:KER:83016
of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a
permanent job and would extend to self employed individuals.
9. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of the accident
and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 9 and deducted one-third
towards the personal expenses of the deceased in accordance with the
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC
[(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. When the compensation
for loss of dependency is calculated as per the revised national income
fixed, the same would come to Rs.7,12,800/- [(9000 + 10%) x 9 x 12 -
1/3]
10. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal granted Rs. 25,000/-.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra)
would show that the reasonable amount payable on conventional heads
namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and that the
aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10% in every three years. The
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :6
2024:KER:83016
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak & Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024
KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above metric awarded a
compensation of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.18,150/- each towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate.
11. In this case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000 towards funeral
expenses and no amount is awarded towards loss of estate and I find
that the same can be modified and the appellants can be allowed
Rs.18,150/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only)
each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.
12. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellants towards
loss of consortium. But, in view of the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, I find that
the same requires modification and that the appellants can be allowed
Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium.
13. It is in evidence that the deceased died on the next day of the
accident. The appellants cited the decision of this Court in Janu P.P and
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :7
2024:KER:83016
others v. T.V. Abdul Salam and another [2022 KHC Online 2328] and
argued that the appellants are also entitled for compensation towards
pain and sufferings of the deceased. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances, I find that a sum of Rs. 5000/- can be allowed to the
appellants under the head 'pain and sufferings'.
14. In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as
modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular
format herein below:
Sl Particulars Compensation Final Amount Payable
No awarded by the
Tribunal (Rs.)
1 Conveyance Rs.3,000/- Rs.3000/-
2 Damages to clothing and articles Rs.1,000/- Rs.1000/-
3 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.18150/-
4 Medical expenses Rs.1,07,254/- Rs.1,07,254/-
5 Compensation for pain and Nil Rs.5000/-
sufferings
6 Compensation for loss of estate Nil Rs.18,150/-
7 Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.48,400/-
8 Compensation for loss of
dependency Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.7,12,800/--
Total Amount Payable Rs. 5,96,300/- Rs.9,13,754/-
M.A.C.A. No. 3396/2016 :8
2024:KER:83016
15. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the
appellants is determined as Rs.9,13,754/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirteen
Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four only).
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellants/petitioners
are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.9,13,754/- with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date
of realization (excluding the period of delay of 324 days in filing the
appeal) with proportionate costs from the respondents. The respondent
insurance company shall deposit the said amount together with interest
and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
