Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., – Appellant
Versus
RAMACHANDRAN, – Respondent
MACA 2968 2019
GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN, SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD
The judgment clarifies the methodology for calculating compensation, particularly the significance of future income prospects and multiplier selection in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Act Section List - The court analyzed the negligence and quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, highlighting proper computation of income, application of future prospects, proper multiplier, and justified deductions of awarded amounts based on legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of a journalist in a motor accident caused by a vehicle driven by the 5th respondent. The Insurance Company disputed liability and compensation quantum, leading to a Tribunal award of Rs.29,10,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings regarding negligence and justified the monthly income fixation. It modified the compensation amount after applying appropriate legal principles and following precedents, resulting in a revised compensation of Rs.27,77,000.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the insurance company's contestation of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly concerning the deceased's monthly income and the assessment of various compensation heads.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principles of income assessment, multipliers, and appropriate deductions for compensation, asserting that reliance on evidence and legal precedents was essential in determining just compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the compensation to Rs.27,77,000.
JUDGMENT ….
This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in OP(MV)
No.2351/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.
2. The said claim petition was submitted by the respondents
1 to 3 herein, seeking compensation for the death of one Raghuram in a motor accident that occurred on 14.04.2012. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are the parents of the deceased, and the 3rd respondent is his brother. According to the claimants, the accident occurred when a motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by a Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KL-35-C-3501, driven by the 5th respondent herein, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant herein. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as a journalist with a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and he was about to be appointed as a Staff reporter with a revised scale of pay of Rs.17,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. The total compensation claimed by the claimants was Rs.40 lakhs.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents in the claim petition, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, were set ex parte. The appellant submitted a written statement admitting the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle but disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence and quantum of compensation were also seriously disputed by them.
4. In support of the claim, PW1 was examined from the side of the claimants and Exhibits A1 to A16 were marked. From the side of the appellant, Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 5th respondent herein and being the Insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.29,10,000/- and the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants have filed a Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard Smt. Latha Susan Cheriyan, the learned counsel for the appellant and A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
6. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is very high and irrational. It is pointed out that, to compute the compensation under the said head, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.17,500/- which is not proper. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would oppose the same.
7. After considering the materials placed on record, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is not acceptable. It is evident that the Tribunal, while fixing the said monthly income, relied on the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A16 certificate. It is discernible from the evidence that the deceased at the relevant time was working as a trainee reporter in “New Indian Express Daily” and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. He also stated that, upon completion of training, he was about to be appointed as a staff reporter with a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-. He further states that, if he was alive, he would have drawn a minimum salary of Rs.60,000/- by the time the PW1 was examined. Thus, it is evident that, at the time of the death, the deceased was about to be posted as a staff reporter with a monthly salary of Rs.17,500/- and the future prospects of the said employment were also evident from his deposition, as it extends to the monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the finding entered by the Tribunal in fi
