Kerala High Court
Seetha vs Vinod Babu on 13 September, 2024
2024:KER:70154
MACA No.4177/2019
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
MACA NO. 4177 OF 2019
OPMV NO.1916 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SEETHA, AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. LATE ABHILASH, KANADI HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTHU,
MOOTHAKUNNAM P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 516.
2 ABINAYAK K.A.(MINOR), AGED 4 YEARS
S/O. LATE ABHILASH, DOB 17.2.2015 (MINOR REPRESENTED
BY MOTHER AND 1ST PETITIONER) SEETHA, AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O. LATE ABHILASH, KANADI HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTHU,
MOOTHAKUNNAM P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 516.
BY ADVS.
SUSANTH SHAJI
V.V.SHAJI(S-1400)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VINOD BABU
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, VINOD BHAVAN, THAMARAKUDY P. O.,
KOTTARAKKARA - 691 560.
2 JOHN JACOB
S/O. JACOB, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, SOUTH PARAVOOR,
UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 320.
2024:KER:70154
MACA No.4177/2019
..2..
3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KHAISE BUILDINGS, OPPO. BENZIGER
HOSPITAL, KOLLAM - 691 001.
BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70154
MACA No.4177/2019
..3..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV)
No.1916 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Pathanamthitta. The respondents herein were the respondents before
the tribunal.
2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on
04.09.2016, while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KL-27-A-3225 through Thiruvalla - Kozhencherry
public road, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-39-F-7786 driven and owned
by the first and second respondents respectively, hit against the
motorcycle, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to
the injuries. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased,
approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of
₹40,00,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the
tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting
the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the
liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal,
Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants.
2024:KER:70154
..4..
No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after
analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the
accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹16,41,636/- as
compensation under different heads against the third respondent
being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims
enhancement under the following heads:
5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the
appellants submits that though the appellants claimed that being a
mason, the deceased was earning ₹23,000/- per month, the tribunal
has fixed the notional monthly income at ₹8,500/-, which is on the
lower side. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011)
13 SCC 236], the income ought to have been ₹10,000/-. Considering
the fact that the deceased was a mason, I deem it appropriate to refix
the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹11,000/-.
2024:KER:70154
..5..
5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the notional monthly
income of the deceased is refixed at ₹11,000/-, the compensation
towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Thus, for
assessing loss of dependency, 40% of the notional monthly income
fixed, has to be added towards future prospects, which would come
to ₹15,400/- (11000 + 4400). Thus, following the judgments in
National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)],
the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of
₹19,71,200/- (15400 x 12 x 16 x 2/3). Hence, there will be an
additional amount of ₹4,48,064/- under the head of loss of
dependency.
6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of
compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records
available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation
awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just
and reasonable.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award is modified, awarding the appellants an additional
compensation of ₹4,48,064/- (Rupees four lakh forty eight thousand
2024:KER:70154
..6..
and sixty four only) over and above the compensation awarded by the
tribunal with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till
realization and proportionate costs. The appellants are entitled to get
50% each of the enhanced compensation together with interest and
costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the share of the first
appellant in a nationalized bank in the name of the first appellant
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment. The share of the second appellant shall be
kept in fixed deposit in the name of the second appellant in a
nationalized bank till he attains majority. The appellants shall furnish
copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the
respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the
insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of
failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance
company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such
deposit being made, the share of the first appellant shall be
disbursed to the first appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
