Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs R.Shaji on 10 January, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 86/2020 :1:
2025:KER:1575
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
MACA NO. 86 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.04.2019 IN O.P(MV) NO.1099 OF 2016 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 R.SHAJI, S/O. RAJENDRAN, RANJENDRA VILASOM, KANNIMEL C WARD,
KAIRALI NAGAR-120, KILIKOLLOOR P O, KOLLAM-691 004.
2 J. GEETHA,
W/O. SHAJI, RAJENDRA VILASOM, KANNIMEL C WARD,
KAIRALI NAGAR-120, KILIKOLLOOR P O, KOLLAM-691 004.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.01.2025, THE COURT ON 10.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 86/2020 :2:
2025:KER:1575
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 86 of 2020
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The 4th respondent insurance company filed this appeal challenging
the award dated 29.04.2019 in O.P.(MV) No. 1099 of 2016 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kollam.
2. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased
Vishnu who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.11.2015.
According to the claim petitioners, while the deceased was riding a
motorcycle, car driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he succumbed to his
injuries on 12.11.2015.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A11
were marked from the side of the claim petitioners and no evidence
adduced from the side of the respondents.
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
2025:KER:1575
respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,99,800/- to the
claim petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company
argued that the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.30,000/- without any basis. But, the learned counsel for the
respondents/claim petitioners pointed out that the deceased was a final
year engineering student who obtained campus selection as Business
Development Manager in a private firm for a monthly salary of
Rs.30,000/- and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the
finding of the Tribunal in this regard. The fact that the deceased was a
final year engineering student aged 23 years at the time of the accident,
is not disputed.
7. Exhibit A8 is a certificate issued by the Principal of Travancore
Engineering College stating that the deceased was a student of 7 th
semester B. Tech Mechanical Engineering Branch in the said institution
during the academic year 2015-2016. Exhibit A10 letter dated
2025:KER:1575
20.11.2015 addressed to the deceased and issued by the firm
Trivandrumtech Solutions shows that as per the campus interview
conducted 12.10.2015, the deceased was offered the post of Business
Development Manager in the Marketing Division of the said firm from
01.04.2016 at a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company
pointed out that the date below the signature in Exhibit A10 is
10.10.2015. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that
PW1 was examined to clarify the ambiguity in Exhibit A10 regarding the
date and PW1 deposed that Exhibit A10 was issued by him and the date
below his signature is only a mistake and that he signed Exhibit A10 only
on 20.11.2015.
9. In cross examination, PW1 stated that he is one of the partners
of the firm Trivandrumtech Solutions and that he is willing to produce
documents to show that he is competent to conduct interview and
appoint staff in the firm during the relevant time. PW1 also stated in
cross examination that there are documents in his company to show that
the campus interview was conducted on 12.10.2015 and he is ready to
produce the same.
2025:KER:1575
10. It is pertinent to note that in spite of the above said
assertions by PW1 in cross examination, the respondent insurance
company has not taken any steps for the production of the said
documents and therefore, on a careful consideration of the evidence of
PW1 and Exhibit A10, I find that the mistake regarding the date below
the signature in Exhibit A10 by itself is not a sufficient ground to suspect
the genuineness of Exhibit A10.
11. The fact that the deceased was selected as Business
Development Manager at a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month
clearly indicates that he was a bright student and therefore, I find that
the Tribunal is justified in fixing the notional income of the deceased by
relying on the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A10, offer letter, and
therefore, no interference is required in this regard.
12. The Tribunal allowed 40% increase towards future prospects
as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].
13. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 18 and deducted 50%
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, who was a
bachelor. The Tribunal also awarded the amount payable on conventional
2025:KER:1575
heads based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) and therefore, I find that the compensation
awarded under various heads are just and reasonable and requires no
interference. In that circumstance, this appeal is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
