Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 510 (KER)

Rahila W/o. Late Rasheed v. Muneer K. p.

2025-03-07

EASWARAN S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. This is an appeal preferred by the legal heirs of one deceased Rasheed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara in OP(MV)No.959 of 2018. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: On 19.04.2018 at about 12.30 PM, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-56-N-1817 from Naduvannur to his house and when he reached Kavil Kolorath Thazhe, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-56-L-6130, driven in a rash and negligent in a manner, came and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased resulting in severe injuries to the rider of the vehicle late Rasheed. Immediately, Rasheed was taken to MMC Hospital, Ulliyeri and thereafter to MIMS, Kozhikode. Later, Rasheed succumbed to the injuries. Claiming compensation, the legal heirs approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. It was contended that the deceased Rasheed was working as a Cash Van Sales Representative in Quality Product Company LLC, Qatar and was getting a monthly income of Rs.1,35,030/- per month. In support of their contention, the claimants/appellants produced Exts.A1 to A17 documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the documents produced by the appellants were not sufficient for the purpose of proving the avocation of deceased Rasheed being abroad as a Sales Representative earning a monthly income of Rs.1,35,030/- and therefore, proceeded to fix the monthly income notionally at Rs.25,000/- and granted the following compensation: SL. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount allowed (in Rupees) Basis/vital details in a nutshell 1 Loss of dependency 2,21,17,914/- 33,60,000/- 25000 x 12 x 14 x 4/5 2 Transport to hospital 25,000/- 5,500/- 3 Damage to clothing 5,000/- 1,500/- Moderate amount 4 Pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- N.A. See National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (5) KHC 350 (SC) 5 Loss of love & affection 5,00,000/- Nil See Valsamma and Another v. V.A.Baiju and others 2018 (1) KHC 153 (D.B.) 6 Funeral Expenses 1,00,000/- 15,000/- See National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC) 7 Loss of Consortium 3,00,000/- 40,000/- First petitioner is spouse of the deceased 8 Loss of Estate 5,00,000/- 15,000/- See National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC) 7 Loss of Consortium 3,00,000/- 40,000/- First petitioner is spouse of the deceased 8 Loss of Estate 5,00,000/- 15,000/- See National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC) 9 Treatment expenses 50,000/- Nil 10 Compensation for mental pain and agony and depression 2,00,000/- Nil 11 Parental consortium Nil 1,20,000/- In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prasanna, 2019 (2) KLT, P2 to P4 are entitled 12 Filial consortium Nil 80,000/- In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prasanna, 2019(2)KLT, P5 and P6 are entitled Total 2,39,97,914/- 2,25,00,000/- 36,37,000/- 3. Aggrieved by the insufficiency in the grant of compensation, the claimants have approached this Court in the present appeal. 4. Heard, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan – learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt.Deepa George learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent Insurance Company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the salary certificate of the deceased Rasheed was produced as Ext.A9 and it was attested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of State of Qatar, as well as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Qatar and was counter signed by the Embassy of India. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the contents of Ext.A9. The learned counsel also pointed out that instead of accepting Ext.A9, the Tribunal went on a roving enquiry as to whether the amount was paid by the employer of deceased Rasheed into a separate bank account and subsequently this amount has been transferred into their account in India. Such a roving enquiry is impermissible by considering an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . 6. On the other hand, Smt. Deepa George – learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, vehemently opposed the plea of the appellants for enhancement of the compensation. According to her, the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts and found that deceased Rasheed was not maintaining any separate account for the transfer of the amounts into the Indian account. Still further, it is pointed out that as per Ext.A8 passport, the work visa was cancelled on 15.09.2014 and thereafter, there is no evidence to prove that deceased Rasheed went back to Qatar and was working as a Sales Representative. Still further, it is pointed out that as per Ext.A8 passport, the work visa was cancelled on 15.09.2014 and thereafter, there is no evidence to prove that deceased Rasheed went back to Qatar and was working as a Sales Representative. She also pointed out that the Tribunal erred egregiously in deducting only one fifth of the amount toward personal expenses, since the deceased had receipts for working abroad, one half of the amount ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the award impugned in this appeal. 8. The question to be considered by this Court is whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting Ext.A9 Salary Certificate. A perusal of Ext.A9 shows that the claimants were successful in establishing the fact that the Salary Certificate was duly attested in accordance with the provisions contained under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oath and Fees) Act, 1948. It is true that such attestation does not necessarily mean that the contents of the documents are automatically established. However, the said attestation has to be construed in the light of the other corroborative evidence in this regard. A perusal of the documentary evidence produced in this case, especially Ext.A16 Employment Certificate, shows that as per the documents received in the embassy late Rasheed was an employee of M/s Ali Bin Ali, Doha, Qatar, holding a residence visa No.27135628731 till 14.09.2018. Still further, Ext.A15 is a residency permit in the name of late Rasheed which shows that Rasheed was issued with a residency permit valid till 14.09.2018. The claimants were also successful in establishing the employment contract of late Rasheed in the form of Exts.A14 and A17. It is in this context that the arguments of Smt.Deepa George - learned counsel for the Insurance Company has to be considered. No doubt, the passport of deceased Rasheed as evident from Ext.A8 does not show that the visa has been stamped after 15.09.2015, but the fact that there is a certificate issued by the Embassy evidencing the fact that as per their records, late Rasheed was a holder of residency permit and work visa till 2018 is an irresistible proof regarding the fact that Rasheed was employed abroad in Qatar. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to reject the contention of the Insurance Company that after 2015, there is no evidence to prove that late Rasheed had gone back to Qatar for the purpose of employment. 9. Coming back to the contents of Ext.A9, it must be noticed that the litigation under Section 166 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is not an adversarial litigation. The income of the deceased victim is to be proved beyond preponderance of probabilities and no strict rules of evidence is required to prove the same. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajwati and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others [2022 ACJ 2754], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that exact proof regarding the income is not a requirement in an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . 10. It is to be noted that the mere fact that the income was not routed through a bank account, nor the corresponding transfer was made regularly by the employer of deceased Rasheed ipso facto will not lead to a conclusion that late Rasheed was not working abroad. Once the contents of Ext.A19 has been certified by the Embassy in Doha, it leads a prima facie proof regarding the income that was generated on account of late Rasheed. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings of the Tribunal in this regard is completely untenable and requires interference. 11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal ought not have deducted one fifth of the amount towards personal expenses of deceased Rasheed being an employee abroad, this Court cannot but notice the fact that the said finding has not been assailed by the Insurance Company in appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Prakash Dwivedi v. Munna and Others [ 2022 KHC Online 3449 ], held that in an appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement, the High Court cannot reduce the compensation by accepting the argument of the Insurance Company. In view of the dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Prakash Dwivedi (supra), the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has to necessarily fail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. As an upshot of these discussion, the necessary corollary is that the appellants are entitled to succeed. In view of the dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Prakash Dwivedi (supra), the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has to necessarily fail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. As an upshot of these discussion, the necessary corollary is that the appellants are entitled to succeed. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation as follows: Heads Amount awarded Total Enhanced amount by the Tribunal Compensation awarded in appeal Notional income of deceased Rasheed is fixed at Rs.1,34,590/-. Adding 25% future prospects the income would come to Rs.1,68,237.5/- Dependency compensation 33,60,000/- 2,26,11,120/- [1,68,237.5 x 12 x 14 x 4/5] 1,92,51,120/- Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- 3,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- 18,000/- 3,000/- Loss of consortium & parental consortium 1,60,000/- [40000 + 120000] 2,88,000/- [(48000 x 6) 10% future prospects added twice] 1,28,000/- [288000 - 160000] Total enhanced amount of compensation 1,93,85,120/- Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,93,85,120/- (Rupees one crore ninety three lakhs eighty five thousand one hundred twenty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization together with proportionate costs. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be released in the proportion ordered by the Tribunal in the award. The appeal is ordered accordingly.