Kerala High Court

The Branch Manager vs Rajamma Prasad on 16 January, 2025

MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                       2024:KER:98343
                                 ..1..

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

    THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA, 1946

                      MACA NO. 1772 OF 2022

  OPMV NO.575 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

          THE BRANCH MANAGER
          C.B.0.3, SHUKLA BHAVAN, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD,
          DHARAMPETH, NAGPUR - MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, IN ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, GROUND
          FLOOR,METROPLAZA, ERNAKULAM NORTH, PIN - 440010


          BY ADV P.A.REZIYA


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1-3/RESPONDENTS 1&2:

    1     RAJAMMA PRASAD
          AGED 56 YEARS
          W/O. NANU RAJENDRA PRASAD MANGALASSERY POIKAYIL,
          PERUMPUZHA (P.0) PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR
          VILLAGE, KALLAM, PIN - 691501

    2     RAKHI PRASAD
          AGED 27 YEARS
          D/O. NANU RAJENDRA PRASAD MANGALASSERY POIKAYIL,
          PERUMPUZHA (P.O) PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR
          VILLAGE, KALLAM, PIN - 691501

    3     RENJU PRASAD
          AGED 24 YEARS
          D/O. NANU RAJENDRA PRASAD MANGALASSERY POIKAYIL,
          PERUMPUZHA (P.O) PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR
          VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691501

    4     RAMACHANDRA WAGANU SURVAM
          AGED 56 YEARS
 MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                      2024:KER:98343
                                ..2..

          S/O. WAGANU, KRISHNA NAGAR, GITTY KHADAM NAGPUR,
          MAHARASHTRA., PIN - 440006

    5     THE SENIOR MANAGER (MATERIALS)
          MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED DR. BABASAHEB
          AMBEDKAR BHAVAN HIGHLAND DERIVE ROAD SEMINARY HILLS
          NAGPUR, PIN - 440006


          BY ADV THOMAS C.ABRAHAM


OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI. A.R. GEORGE -SC
          SRI. BIJU C ABRAHAM


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 06.12.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.777/2024, THE COURT ON 16.01.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                       2024:KER:98343
                                 ..3..


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

    THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA, 1946

                          MACA NO. 777 OF 2024

  OPMV NO.575 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

    1     RAJAMMA PRASAD
          AGED 57 YEARS
          W/O. NANU RAJENDRA PRASAD, MANGALASSERY POIKAYIL,
          PERUMPUZHA PO, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691504

    2     RAKHI PRASAD
          AGED 28 YEARS
          D/O. NANU RAJENDRA PRASAD, MANGALASSERY POIKAYIL,
          PERUMPUZHA PO, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691504

    3     RENJU PRASAD
          AGED 25 YEARS
          D/O. NANU RAJENDRA PRASAD, MANGALASSERY POIKAYIL,
          PERUMPUZHA PO, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691504


          BY ADVS.
          THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
          BASIL MATHEW




RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     RAMACHANDRA WAGANU SURVAM
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O. WAGANU, KRISHNA NAGAR, GITTY KHADAM, NAGPUR,
 MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                      2024:KER:98343
                                ..4..

          MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 440002

    2     THE SENIOR MANAGER (MATERIALS), MINERAL EXPLORATION
          CORPORATION LTD
          DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, HIGHLAND DERIVE ROAD,
          SENINARY HILLS, NAGPUR, PIN - 440006

    3     THE BRANCH MANAGER
          THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., C.B.O. 3, SHUKLA
          BHAVAN, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD, DHARAMPETH, NAGPUR,
          MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 440002


          BY ADV A.R.GEORGE


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 06.12.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1772/2022, THE COURT ON 16.01.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                               2024:KER:98343
                                   ..5..




                               JUDGMENT

These appeals arise from the impugned award dated

07.12.2021 in OP(MV) No.575 of 2016 of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Kollam. MACA No. 1772 of 2022 is filed by the insurer

challenging the delay in filing the claim petition and the quantum of

compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas MACA No.777 of 2024

is filed by the claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the tribunal.

2. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same,

the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this

common judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are

arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 13.01.2002, while

the deceased along with his colleagues was returning from the mine,

due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the

accident occurred, whereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and

succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the

deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of

₹30,00,000/-.

 MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                           2024:KER:98343
                                 ..6..

4. The first respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The

second respondent filed a written statement contending that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle

bearing Reg.No.MH 32 B 1258 trolly and MH 32 A1 253 tractor. The

respondent insurer filed a written statement, contending that the

petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is further

contended that the long delay of 14 years and 59 days was not properly

explained. They denied the policy alleging that they are unable to trace

out the policy and further, they disputed the liability and quantum of

compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked

on the side of the claimants. 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 first respondent and awarded a sum of ₹7,35,570/- as

compensation under different heads against the third respondent being

the insurer. Challenging this, the claimants as well as the insurer have

come up in appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer.

6. The main issue to be decided in this case is whether the claim

is time barred as it was filed nearly 14 years after the accident.

 MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024                             2024:KER:98343
                                  ..7..

Admittedly, the accident occurred on 13.01.2002 while the deceased

Nanu Rajendra Prasad along with his colleagues was returning from the

mine in a vehicle. The insurer raised the contention of the long delay of

14 years and 59 days in filing the claim petition. While framing the

issue, the tribunal omitted to raise the issue regarding the long delay in

filing the claim petition and awarded compensation to the claimants

being the legal heirs of the deceased Nanu Rajendra Prasad.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that no

proper reasons have been stated for the long delay in filing the claim

petition and due to passage of time, the claim has become time barred.

Hence, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the tribunal ought

not have awarded compensation to the claimants. Per contra, the

learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there was no limitation

in filing the claim petition before the tribunal and hence, there was no

necessity for explaining the reason for the delay. It is further submitted

that the insurer admitted the accident as well as the validity of the

policy.

8. In the appeal also, the claimants have not stated any proper

reason for the delay in filing the claim petition. However, at the time of

hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the

accident occurred in Maharashtra and it took many years to get all the MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024 2024:KER:98343 ..8..

documents and the documents received were in Marati and it is after

prolonged efforts that the documents got translated. Thereafter, a

lawyer was entrusted with the case and there was no willful laches on

the part of the claimants to approach the tribunal in a reasonable time.

The learned counsel further submitted that the family of the deceased,

which consisted of the wife and two minor children, was solely

depending on the deceased and the wife/first claimant was jobless.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer relied on the

judgments in Purohit & Company (M/s) v. Khatoonbee and Another [2017

(4) SCC 783], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jojo T.G. [2019 KHC 682]

and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Varghese & Another

[2024:KER:80570], to substantiate his contention that the claimants

ought to have approached the tribunal within a reasonable time, though

no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute for entertaining a

claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

10. No doubt, a claim petition has to be filed within a

reasonable period, for the insurer to ascertain the accident, verify

documents and to come to a conclusion whether the claim is a genuine

one or not. In the case on hand, the insurer does not have a case that

there was no accident as alleged or the documents are irretrievable or

there was no valid policy in respect of the vehicle. In the written MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024 2024:KER:98343 ..9..

statement filed by the insurer though it is stated that they were unable

to trace out the policy, they have no such case in the appeal. The

accident, policy and the genuinity of the claim are not denied by the

insurer. Since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, this

Court cannot dismiss the claim petition as time barred, denying the

claimants compensation solely because it was filed 14 years after the

accident. The emotional and social trauma suffered by a family that

loses its breadwinner is immeasurable and cannot be quantified. India

is indeed a signatory to the Brasilia Declaration, which aims to reduce

road traffic fatalities. The road transport sector also plays a major role

in the economy of the country. When a husband or father, especially at

a young age, passes away, it can cause immense emotional trauma and

pain for the entire family. Loss of life in an accident is traumatic and

irreversible loss that cannot be adequately compensated by any amount

of financial reparation. The accidental death of the sole breadwinner in

Maharashtra, likey plunged the claimant wife into a state of mental

distress, agony, and uncertainty.

11. In Jojo T.G. (supra), which is relied on by the learned

Standing Counsel for the insurer, it was held that a claim that has long

remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained

delay which is so long as to render it difficult or impossible for the court MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024 2024:KER:98343 ..10..

to ascertain the truth of the matter in controversy and do justice

between the parties or as to create a presumption against the existence

or validity of the claim or a perception that the claim has been

abandoned or satisfied, can be said to be stale claim. In motor accident

cases, filing claim petitions with significant delay can deprive insurers

of the opportunity to verify the claim's genuineness, as evidence and

witnesses may no longer be available due to the passage of time. The

insurer does not have a case that the documents are not available or the

genuinity of the claim could not be ascertained. The insurer's sole

argument is that the claim is time barred. At the time of filing the claim

petition, there was no specified time limit for submitting a claim. The

accident occurred in Maharashtra and the claimants made considerable

efforts to collect, translate and submit the necessary documents to file

the claim petition before the tribunal. At the time of accident, the wife

was just 36 years old and the children were merely seven and four years

old respectively, making them highly dependent on the deceased Nanu

Rajendra Prasad. Moreover, the claimants are awarded interest on the

compensation amount from the date of the claim petition and not from

the date of accident, which does not unfairly prejudice the insurer.

Considering the unique circumstances, the insurer's non-dispute of the

policy and accident and the family's plight, I take a liberal view and

condone the delay of over 14 years in filing the claim petition, finding it MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024 2024:KER:98343 ..11..

unintentional. Accordingly, I hold that the claimants are entitled for

compensation for the death of the deceased. I also find no reason to

interfere with the tribunal's finding.

12. The learned counsel for the claimants sought

enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal mainly under

the head, loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the claimants

submitted that the deceased was permanently employed in MECL,

Nagpur, as Junior Technician and hence, 30% of the notional monthly

income ought to have been added towards future prospects, whereas

the tribunal added only 25%. I find force in the submission of the

learned counsel for the claimants. The notional monthly income fixed by

the tribunal is ₹4,000/-. Thus, after adding 30% of the notional income

towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹5,200/-

(4000 + 1200).

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer

submitted that the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of the

accident, but while assessing compensation towards loss of dependency,

the tribunal adopted the multiplier as "14" instead of "13". On a perusal

of the impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal has found that the

deceased was 42 years old at the time of the accident. Further, the

insurer has not produced any document to substantiate their contention MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024 2024:KER:98343 ..12..

that the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of the accident.

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the

tribunal. Accordingly, 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 ₹5,82,400/- (5200 x 12 x 14 x 2/3)

towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount

of ₹22,330/- under the head, loss of dependency.

14. Though the claimants as well as the insurer challenged

the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads as well,

on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not

inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and

reasonable.

Accordingly, the following orders are issued:

a) MACA No.1772 of 2022 is dismissed.

b) MACA No.777 of 2024 is allowed in part and the impugned award

is modified, awarding the appellants an additional compensation of

₹22,330/- (Rupees twenty two thousand three hundred and thirty

only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal

with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till MACA Nos.1772/2022 & 777/2024 2024:KER:98343 ..13..

realisation, excluding interest for the period from 21.06.2018 to

29.05.2019. The insurer shall deposit the said amount together

with interest and costs within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

c) The claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR

Card and bank details before the 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

entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimants at the earliest in

accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced