Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 984 (KER)

Nimisha v. Rajath

2024-08-05

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Judgment dated 28.06.2024 is recalled. Modified judgment is as follows; This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.2432 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 04.09.2012, the deceased, while pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08-X-92777 ridden by the first respondent, met with an accident, resulting in grievous injuries; and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second 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 A8 were marked on the side of the appellants/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 rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.15,79,200/- as compensation under different heads against the second 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 claimed enhancement under the following heads; 5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-, but, as per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [2011 (3) KLT Suppl. 80 (SC) = (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at 8,500/-. Following the judgment inRs. Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 8,500/-. 5.2. Loss of dependency – Since the notional monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs. 8,500/-, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Following the judgment inRs. Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 8,500/-. 5.2. Loss of dependency – Since the notional monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs. 8,500/-, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Further, for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency, 40% future prospects has to be added to the re-fixed notional income, which would come to Rs. 11,900/- (8500 + 3400). On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has taken “17” as the multiplier for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. Since the deceased was 31 years at the time of the accident, the correct multiplier to be adopted is “16”. Thus, following the decisions 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 Rs.17,13,600/- (11900 x 12 x 16 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Accordingly, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 4,28,400/- under this head. 5.3. Loss of consortium - The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium, which is on the lower side, and since appellants 1 to 3 were the dependents of the deceased, they are entitled for a total amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Going by the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], I am of the opinion that the appellants can be granted a total compensation of 1,20,000/- under this head. However, it is seen that the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which has to be adjusted with the compensation towards loss of consortium. Hence, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 75,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection and the amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head, loss of consortium. 6. Hence, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 75,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection and the amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head, loss of consortium. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants sought 20% enhancement of compensation under the conventional heads, relying on the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein the apex court held that under the conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, 10% enhancement of compensation has to be granted every three years. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) was rendered in the year 2017 and since this appeal is pending before this Court for the past six years, the appellants are entitled to get 20% enhancement under the above conventional heads. The learned counsel further relied on a catena of decisions such as, Sreedevi v. Abu [ 2023 (6) KLT 799 ]; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prameela T.G. & others [[ 2022 (2) KLT 343 = 2022 KHC 190 ]; Joseph K.J. v. K.Dhanapal [2022 KHC 1094], wherein 10% enhancement of compensation was granted by this Court under conventional heads. On a perusal of the above judgments, it is seen that this Court has not decided on the issue as to whether it is the date of the accident or the date of the judgment, that has to be taken into account for awarding 10% enhancement under the conventional heads. Hence, I am not inclined to follow the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants for awarding enhancement under the conventional heads. 7. It is true that the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) was rendered in the year 2017. However, while rendering the judgment, the Constitution Bench of the apex court has not specifically stated whether 10% enhancement every three years has to be calculated from the date of the accident or from the date of filing of the claim petition before the tribunal or from the date of filing appeal before the appellate court. It can only be the date of the accident. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation is payable for the accident, for which the relevant date is the date of accident. The date on which the accident occured is important while awarding compensation. It can only be the date of the accident. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation is payable for the accident, for which the relevant date is the date of accident. The date on which the accident occured is important while awarding compensation. Merely because this appeal was pending before this Court for the past six years, it cannot be said that the appellants will be entitled for 10% enhancement every three years, which would come to 20% enhancement in the present case since the appeal was filed in the year 2019 and the judgment is proposed to be rendered in 2024. In this case, the accident and death occured in the year 2012. I find that they are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads and the tribunal has already awarded compensation under the said heads. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), 10% enhancement on conventional heads can be granted only in case of accidents occurred after 31.10.2020 and the further 10% enhancement can be granted only for the accident which occurred after 31.10.2023. In respect of those accidents upto 31.10.2020, the claimants will be entitled to get Rs.15,000/-,Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants for 20% enhancement under the conventional heads and accordingly, I reject the said prayer. 8. 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 of the tribunal is modified awarding the appellants/claimants an additional compensation of Rs.4,33,400/- (Rupees four lakh thirty three thousand and four hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent 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. The respondent 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. The claimant 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 entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.