Kerala High Court
Preethu vs Sukumaran.P on 6 September, 2024
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
1
2024:KER:68090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.03.2019 IN OPMV NO.753 OF 2017 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 PREETHU
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O PRASAD, RESIDING AT KADAMPATPADI HOUSE, KONDAZHI, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-679 108.
2 PRASAD K.G,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O VALLI, RESIDING AT KADAMPATTPADI HOUSE, KONDAZHI, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-679 108.
3 SREERUDRA PRASAD (MINOR),
AGED 11 YEARS
D/O PRASAD K.G, RESIDING AT KADAMPATTPADI HOUSE, KONDAZHI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-679 108.
4 PRARTHANA PRASAD (MINOR),
AGED 8 YEARS
D/O PRASAD K.G, RESIDING AT KADAMPATTPADI HOUSE, KONDAZHI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-679 108. (MINOR APPELLANTS 3 AND 4
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THEIR GUARDIAN FATHER THE 2ND APPELLANT).
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUKUMARAN.P
S/O AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT PANIKAVEETTIL HOUSE, .R.S.,ROAD,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-679 101.
2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
JRJ COMPLEX, II FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.07.2024, THE COURT ON 06.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
2
2024:KER:68090
JUDGMENT
The claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(MV)No.753 of 2017 are the
appellants.
2. One Sreesabari a minor died in a motor accident
on 20.07.2017 at 4.10 p.m. Sreesabari and his mother were
travelling on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-48-H-2219
ridden by the 2nd petitioner (father) from the bus stand at
Ottapalam to Railway Station. When it reached in front of K.V.
Textiles at Ottapalam, Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-
51-B-3683 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of the impact,
the victim child sustained fatal injuries and his mother sustained
grievous injuries. Though the injured were taken to the hospital,
the minor child died on the next day i.e on 21.07.2017. The
liability was indemnified by the 2nd respondent.
3. On the side of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A16 were
marked. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal
found that in respect of the death of the minor, an amount of
Rs.2,44,500/- in addition to the ambulance charges of Rs.5,000/-
and treatment expenses of Rs.11,150/- is to be allowed and
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
2024:KER:68090
accordingly awarded the compensation.
4. Aggrieved by the award of the compensation at a
lower level, the claimants are before this Court with the present
appeal.
5. I have heard Sri.Nimod A.R, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
primarily contended that the award of the compensation by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is too meagre. The Tribunal did
not award compensation under the head funeral expenses and loss
of estate and going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662], they are entitled for the
compensation under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of
estate. It is further contended that going by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others [(2018)
18 SCC 130], the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation
towards love and affection and ignoring the principles of parental
and filial consortium.
7. On the other hand, Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that, in case
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
2024:KER:68090
of death of a minor child, it is not possible for the Tribunal to
award compensation by calculating the notional income and
applying the multiplier. The only method under which these
compensations could be awarded is by calculating the
compensation on a just and reasonable basis. In fact, Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only contemplates awarding
compensation on a just and fair manner. He relied on the
judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in Vinod v.
Suresh Kumar [2023 KHC 191] in support of the above
proposition.
8. I have considered the rival submissions raised
across the Bar.
9. At the outset itself, it is to be noted that the
Tribunal has arrived at the compensation and fixed it as
Rs.2,44,500/- without any basis. A perusal of the award shows
that there is no discussion on the part of the Tribunal as to how
the aforesaid amount was arrived at.
10. The issue of granting compensation in respect of
a deceased minor child had been a serious point of dispute.
Various High Courts have taken different views, but ultimately, the
endeavour was always to arrive at a compensation, which is only
just and fair.
11. In Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
2024:KER:68090
Nemchand Mahto and Others [2022 KHC 7080], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the issue on awarding the
compensation for a deceased minor child. A reading of the
aforesaid judgment, especially paragraph No.13 shows that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, took the notional earning of the child at
Rs.30,000/- including future prospects and applied the multiplier
of 15 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2)KLT
802] and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/- and
then added Rs.50,000/- in the conventional head and then a total
sum of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted.
12. In Bijumon v. New India Assurance Limited
[2023 KHC 193], a learned Single Judge of this Court followed
the decision in Meena Devi (supra) and arrived at the
compensation under the head loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/-.
13. In New India Assurance Company Limited v.
Urmila Halder (S.L.P(C)No.6260 of 2019), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rejected the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against
the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta, by which the compensation was increased from
Rs.1,48,500/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.
14. Later, in Kusmi Devi v. Md. Kasim and
Another [CDJ 2023 SC 858], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
2024:KER:68090
occasioned to consider the question as to whether the principle of
global compensation could be applied in a case where death of a
minor has occurred. While considering the amount awarded as
compensation by the High Court in an appeal against the award
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while upholding the principles followed by the
High Court under the global compensation method, increased the
compensation by another Rs.1,00,000/- lakh.
15. The next contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants - Sri.Nimod A.R with regard to non granting of
compensation under the head pain and sufferings and loss of
estate, this Court finds that these principles are already settled by
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra). Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has erred
egregiously in not awarding the compensation under those heads.
16. On a cumulative assessment of the points
discussed above, the question before this Court would be as to
whether this Court should adopt the global compensation method
as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and fixed the
compensation accordingly instead of fixing it under different heads
as claimed by the appellants, irrespective of the manner under
which the appellants are entitled for compensation.
17. On a consideration of the principles laid down by
MACA NO. 595 OF 2021
2024:KER:68090
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi (supra) and also the
principles laid down in Kusmi Devi (supra), this Court is of the
considered view that the appellants are certainly entitled for
compensation fixed as per the global compensation method
followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is declared
that the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation by
applying the principles of global compensation method and thus
they are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Thus
the appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of
Rs.3,39,350/- (6,00,000-2,60,650). The respondent insurer shall
deposit the said amount together with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from 28.11.2017 till date of realisation. The Insurance
Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation together with
interest and proportionate costs within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claimant shall
furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company
for transfer of the amount. The appeal is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
rp
