Kerala High Court
Alphonsa vs The Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd on 21 November, 2024
Object 4
1
2
3
M.A.C.A. No. 587/2016 :1 :
2024:KER:86839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 587 OF 2016
AWARD DATED 31.01.2015 IN O.P(MV) NO.649 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P (M.V) NO. 649/2011:
1 ALPHONSA
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O.DECEASED KP. JOSE, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, MAROTTICHODE,
KALADY PO, MATTOOR, NOW RESIDING AT KOLENCHERY HOUSE,
ST. VINCENT DEPAUL NAGAR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 SANDHYA JOSE, AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O.JOSHY, PULLAN HOUSE, POTTA P.O, CHALAKKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 SOUMYA, AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.JOMON, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.REJI GEORGE
SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY
RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT NO.3 IN O.P(M.V) NO. 649/2011)
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
570, RECTIFIER HOUSE, NAIGUM CROSS ROAD, WADALA (W),
MUMBAI 400 031.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.11.2024, THE COURT ON 21.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 587/2016 :2 :
2024:KER:86839
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 587 of 2016
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024.
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 649 of 2011 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The
petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Jose.
2. According to the petitioners, on 15.04.2011, at 9.40 p.m., while
the deceased was riding his scooter through Kalady-Angamaly road, bus
driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the
scooter and the deceased who sustained serious injuries succumbed to
the injuries on the same day. The 2 nd respondent is the owner of the
offending bus and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked from the
side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the
respondents.
2024:KER:86839
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the
accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1 st
respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.6,53,464/- to the petitioners.
5. The appellants are challenging the quantum of compensation
fixed by the Tribunal on the ground that the same is inadequate.
According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 55 years and having
a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- from his occupation as a lorry driver.
The Tribunal found that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence to
prove the occupation and monthly income of the deceased and
therefore, fixed a notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month.
6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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
2024:KER:86839
monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- 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. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by
adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.8,000/- as the accident
occurred in the year 2011.
7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and
Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of
future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a
permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in
case of a self-employed person, an addition of 10% of the established
income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the
accident was below 60 years.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
Tribunal mistakenly adopted the multiplier of 9, instead of 11. The
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi
2024:KER:86839
Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] shows that the
multiplier applicable to persons aged between 51-55 years is 11 and that
where the deceased was married and the number of dependent family
members is 3, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation
for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would
come to Rs.7,74,400/- [(8000 + 10%) x 2/3 x 12 x 11].
9. 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 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. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral
2024:KER:86839
expenses and loss of estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/- each and the
first petitioner will also be entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards loss of
consortium. In view of the compensation granted towards loss of
consortium, the petitioners are not entitled for separate compensation
under the head loss of love and affection.
10. In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as
modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular
format herein below :
Compensation
Sl. Final Amount
Particulars awarded by the
No Payable
Tribunal (Rs.)
1 Transport to hospital 1000/- 1000/-
2 Funeral expenses 25,000 18,150/-
3 Dependency 4,13,964/- 7,74,000/-
4 Loss of estate 2500/- 18,150/-
5 Love and affection 1,00,000/- NIL
6 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 48,400/-
7 Pain and suffering 10,000/- 10,000/-
8 Damage to clothes etc. 1,000/- 1,000/-
Total amount Payable 6,53,464/- 8,70,700/-
11. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the
petitioners is determined as Rs. 8,70,700./-.
In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the appellants/petitioners
2024:KER:86839
are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.8,70,700./-.
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Seven Hundred only) with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition
till the date of realization (excluding the period of delay of 282 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
