Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.T. Ravikumar, K.P. Jyothindranath, JJ.
Wilcy Stephen - Appellant
Vs.
A.C. Stephen - Respondent
M.A.C.A. Nos. 258 and 377 of 2011
Decided On : 08-06-2016
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeals arise from a common judgment related to motor vehicle accident claims involving the death of two individuals, Clifford Stephen and Steev Stephen, with the claims filed under different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act (Sections 163-A and 166) (!) (!) .
The Tribunal awarded compensation amounts for both cases, with detailed considerations of liability, negligence, and the extent of damages. The awards included specific amounts for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and loss of estate (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The insurance company contested the claims primarily on the grounds that the claimant's asserted monthly income was higher than what the Tribunal considered, and that the claim should be dismissed under procedural provisions (Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC) because the insurer did not file an appeal or cross-objection against the original award (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the power under Order 41, Rule 33 is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously, mainly to prevent contradictory decisions on the same issues. It clarified that such power cannot be exercised to dismiss claims or awards without proper procedural grounds, especially when the original judgment has become final due to the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the opposing party (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court found that the insurance company, despite having admitted coverage and liability, did not challenge the original award through appeal or cross-objection, and thus, invoking Order 41, Rule 33 to dismiss or modify the award was not justified (!) (!) (!) .
The Court also scrutinized the method of calculation of compensation by the Tribunal, particularly criticizing the use of the multiplier method instead of the structured formula prescribed under the relevant schedule for claims under Section 163-A. The Court noted that the correct approach is to use the structured formula, considering the age and income of the deceased, and that the Tribunal's method was irregular and unjustified (!) (!) (!) .
Adjustments to the compensation amounts were ordered, including increasing the awards for loss of dependency and additional heads such as funeral expenses and pain and suffering, based on the evidence and applicable legal principles. The Court directed the respective respondents to deposit the enhanced amounts within a specified period (!) (!) (!) .
The appeals were allowed to the extent of increasing the awarded compensation, with the parties bearing their respective costs, and the insurance company directed to deposit the additional amounts with interest within three months (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal and factual issues, the Court’s reasoning regarding procedural and substantive law, and the final directions issued.
Ravikumar, J.
These appeals arise from a common award dated 27.9.2010 in O.P.(M.V)Nos.503 and 1048 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. In fact, both the appeals have been preferred by one and the same person and therefore, hereafter in this judgment she will be referred to as 'the appellant'. The appellant herein filed the aforementioned claim petitions seeking compensation for the death of her two sons namely, Clifford Stephen and Steev Stephen in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7.5.2005. O.P. (M.V)No.503 of 2006 was filed seeking compensation for the death of Steev Stephen and O.P.(M.V)No.1048 of 2006 was filed seeking compensation for the death of Clifford Stephen. On that day, the deceased Clifford Stephen was driving the Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KL-07/AT-5743 belonging to the first respondent who is none other than his own father, from east to west through Thevara bridge. His brother Steev Stephen was sitting beside him on the left seat. During its further course the said vehicle hit against the rear side of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-57/B-7864 and consequently, both of them sustained injuries. Clifford Stephen died instantaneously and Steev Stephen was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. While undergoing treatment there as an inpatient, on the 4th day, he too breathed his last. It is in the said circumstances that the aforementioned claim petitions have been filed. In fact, O.P.(M.V) No.1048 of 2006 was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') whereas O.P.(M.V)No.503 of 2006 was filed under Section 166 of the Act. Though the Tribunal had not conducted a joint enquiry it is a fact that the claim petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal as per the common judgment dated 27.9.2010. Evidently, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned award would reveal that separate enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal and in O.P.(M.V)No.1048 of 2006 Exts.A1 to A13 were got marked and in O.P.(M.V)No.503 of 2006 Exts.A1 to A14 were got marked. The said fact is discernible from the appendix to the impugned award, as well. Paragraph 10 would reveal that after conducting separate enquiry, on finding that the victims in both the cases died in the same occurrence common judgment was delivered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions passed an award for a total compensation of Rs. 1,96,500/- in O.P.(M.V) No.1048 of 2006 and Rs. 1,17,000/- in O.P.(M.V)No.503 of 2006. In both the claim petitions it was ordered that the amounts awarded would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the respective petitions till realisation. It is feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted thereunder that M.A.C.A.Nos.258 of 2011 and 377 of 2011 are filed, as mentioned hereinbefore.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and also the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company which is arrayed as respondents 2 and 5 on account of it being the insurer of both the vehicles involved in the accident.
3. We will firstly consider whether the Tribunal has committed an error, warranting interference, by disposing of both the claim petitions, one filed under Section 163-A of the Act and the other under Section 166 of the Act, by a common judgment. True that the term employed under Sections 168 and 173 of the Act is 'award' and not 'judgment'. But then, Rule 392 of the Kerala Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 provides as follows:-
"392. Judgment and award of compensation.-(1) The Claims Tribunal in passing orders, shall record concisely in a judgment, the findings on each of the issues framed and the reasons for such findings and make an award specifying the amount of compensation to be paid by the insurer, or the owner in the case of vehicles which are not insured and also the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid.
(2)
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
