Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 28 (KER)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bihava

2016-01-11

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Challenge is by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- in respect of a person aged 21 years who was admittedly pursuing his studies in a Polytechnic, for obtaining a Diploma in the relevant field of Engineering. The contention is that the Tribunal has reckoned a notional monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- and added 30%, referring to the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Savita v. Bindar Singh (2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 78 (SC) : 2014 ACJ 1261) which according to the Insurance Company is not at all applicable to the case in hand and hence the challenge. The accident occurred was on 25.3.2012. The deceased, while riding a motor cycle, was knocked down by the mini lorry/mini pick up van bearing Reg. No. KL-55-H-3063 driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal; causing fatal injuries leading to his death. This was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition preferred by the parents and siblings. 2. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts. A1 to A7. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced from the part of the respondents before the Tribunal. The policy stands admitted. The owner of the vehicle i.e., the second respondent did not turn up and was set ex parte. Negligence was disputed by the first respondent driver. Challenge raised by the Insurance Company was on general grounds, as no violation of the statutory/policy conditions was ever pointed out. After evaluation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the pick up van and proceeded to fix the compensation accordingly. 3. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the case put up by the claimants was that the deceased was working as a Software Developer in a private institution with a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. But the document produced from the part of the claimants by way of Ext. A5, revealed that he was pursuing studies in a Polytechnic. This according to the appellant was enough to hold that the deceased was not at all an employee having any income. Under this circumstance, there is absolutely no rhyme or to have reckoned a notional income of Rs. A5, revealed that he was pursuing studies in a Polytechnic. This according to the appellant was enough to hold that the deceased was not at all an employee having any income. Under this circumstance, there is absolutely no rhyme or to have reckoned a notional income of Rs. 5,000/- per month for working out the loss of dependency. That apart, the ratio of the decision rendered by Supreme Court in Savita v. Bindar Singh (2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 78 (SC) : 2014 ACJ 1261) is not applicable to the case in hand, to have added 30% of the monthly income towards future prospects. 4. We heard the matter in detail. The nature of challenge raised from the part of the appellant Insurance Company, that the deceased being a student as disclosed from Ext. A5, could not have been considered as a person having any income does not inspire confidence of this Court for the reason that, the case put up by the claimants was that he was working as a Software Developer with the income as claimed. Though the claim with regard to the quantum of income generated may not be fully correct, nothing prevented the deceased from functioning as a Software Developer which job could be pursued even sitting at home or after the study hours. That apart, the deceased was pursuing his studies in Polytechnic to acquire a technical qualification. A 'Diploma' in engineering in the relevant field is an added advantage and it shows that the deceased was having atleast a technical know how in the relevant field where he was pursuing his studies. Once he completed his studies, it will be quite open for him to have engaged himself in some or other establishment obtaining appropriate job and earning sizable income. Even otherwise, the deceased was an able bodied youth of 21 years', who could have been considered as a 'general worker' and since the accident was in the year 2012, the monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said as excessive in any manner. We find that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which as per the verdict passed by the Apex Court reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)) could have been Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5,000/- adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said as excessive in any manner. We find that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which as per the verdict passed by the Apex Court reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)) could have been Rs. 1,00,000/-. We also find that the Tribunal has awarded only a meagre amount towards pain and suffering which could have been something more, though the death had occurred on the same day. In the said circumstances, even if there is some excess with regard to the loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal (which in fact is not so), it could be set off against the other inadequate heads. We find that the award passed by the Tribunal is a 'just' award as envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and it stands dismissed accordingly.