Kerala High Court
Rahmath vs George on 17 February, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 454/2023 :1:
2025:KER:12972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 454 OF 2023
AWARD DATED 21.10.2022 IN O.P(MV) NO.508 OF 2019 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAHMATH
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. LATE SAHEER, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU DESOM,
ERAVATHOOR P.O., THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 734
2 RAMSY
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. LATE SAHEER, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU DESOM,
ERAVATHOOR P.O., THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 734
3 MUHAMMED ASLAM
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. LATE SAHEER @ MUHAMMED SAHEER, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOCHUKADAVU DESOM, ERAVATHOOR P.O., THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680734
BY ADV V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 GEORGE,
S/O. OUSEPH, H. NO. 2/591, PULIYAN HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMBU
DESOM, KARUKUTTY P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683 576
2 BAIJU, S/O. MATHAI, PANANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOKKUNNU
DESOM, MOOKKANNOOR P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683 577
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016, REP. BY
THE MANAGER.
BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2025, THE COURT ON 17.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 454/2023 :2:
2025:KER:12972
'CR'
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 454 of 2023
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 508 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Saheer.
According to the petitioners, on 15.2.2019, while the deceased was
walking through the side of the National Highway, motor cab driven by
the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the
deceased and thereby, he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently
succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The 1 st respondent is the
owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A11
were marked from the side of the petitioners and Exhibit X1 and X2 were
also marked. No evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.
2025:KER:12972
4. Heard Sri. Binoy Ram V., the learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri. Rajan P. Kalliyath, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
multiplier applied by the Tribunal for calculating the compensation is not
in accordance with the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT
802 (SC)]. It is pointed out that even after recording a finding that the
deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal
applied the multiplier of '9' on the ground that the deceased has already
completed the age of 55 years at the time of the accident.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that for persons
aged between 51-55 years, the multiplier applicable is 11. But, the
learned counsel for the respondent insurance company argued that the
multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running age and not on
the basis of the completed age and since the running age of the
deceased at the time of the accident was 56, the Tribunal is justified in
applying the multiplier of '9'.
2025:KER:12972
7. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company
cited the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Mehrunnisa v.
Dastagir Miyan [Laws (Kar) 2020 12 144] and the decision of the High
Court of Delhi in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
v. Geeta and others [Laws (DLH) 2018 4 450] in support of the
argument that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running
age and not completed age. But, the learned counsel for the appellants
cited the decision of this Court in Meera P.O and another v. Ananda
P. Naik and others [2022 (1) KHC 591] and the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Shashikala and others v.
Gangalakshmamma and another [(2015) 9 SCC 150] in support of
the argument that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the
completed age and not on the basis of the running age. In Shashikala
(supra), while selecting the multiplier of the deceased who had
completed the age of 45 years, the Honourable Supreme Court held
thus:
16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the
deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of
accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months
and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the
2025:KER:12972
deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly
taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14
which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. ..."
8. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company
cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar
Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation
[2018 (1) KLT 3094 (SC)] in support of the contention that the multiplier
is to be selected on the basis of the running age. In the said case, the
Tribunal, after recording a finding that the appellant was 36 years of
age, applied the multiplier of 16 and the Honourable Supreme Court
observed that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15. As
per column No.(4) of the table in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier
applicable for persons aged 36-40 years is 15 and therefore, I find that
the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay kumar Rastogi
(supra) will not support the contention of the respondent insurance
company that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running
age and not on the basis of the completed age. In view of the decision of
this Court in Meera P.O (supra) and the dictum laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Shashikala (supra), I find that the
contention of the respondent insurance company is not legally
2025:KER:12972
sustainable and that the Tribunal after reckoning the age of the
deceased as 55 years ought to have applied the multiplier of '11' as
provided in column No.(4) of the table in Sarla Verma (supra). When
the compensation for loss of dependency is calculated by applying the
multiplier of 11, the appellants are entitled for Rs.68,76,276/- [52,093 x
12 x 11]. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.56,26,044/- under this
head. Therefore, the appellants are granted an additional compensation
of Rs.12,50,232/- under this head.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident
occurred at 5.50 a.m. on 15.02.2019 and the victim died at 6.30 a.m. on
the same day and the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards the
pain and sufferings of the deceased. Section 2 of the Kerala Torts
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 shows that the right to sue for
compensation for pain and suffering would survive upon the legal heirs,
if the injured died at a later point of time and therefore, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.10,000/- is granted to the
appellants under the head--' pain and sufferings' of the deceased. The
compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads are reasonable
and requires no interference.
10. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced
2025:KER:12972
compensation as given below:
Additional
amount
Compensation
granted by
Particulars awarded by the
this Court
Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 56,26,044/- 12,50,232/-
Pain and sufferings NIL 10,000/-
Total enhanced compensation
12,60,232/-
11. Thus, a total amount of Rs.12,60,232/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs
Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Two only) is awarded as
enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realization. The
appellants would also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The
claimants shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance
company for transfer of the amount.
The appeal is allowed as above.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
