Alphonsa vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Johnson John, J.

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 649 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Jose.

According to the petitioners, on 15.04.2011, at 9.40 p.m., while the deceased was riding his scooter through Kalady-Angamaly road, bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter and the deceased who sustained serious injuries succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending bus and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.

Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.

After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,53,464/- to the petitioners.

The appellants are challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal on the ground that the same is inadequate. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 55 years and having a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- from his occupation as a lorry driver. The Tribunal found that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence to prove the occupation and monthly income of the deceased and therefore, fixed a notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month.

The   decision   of   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.8,000/- as the accident occurred in the year 2011.

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in case of a self-employed person, an addition of 10% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 60 years.

The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Tribunal mistakenly adopted the multiplier of 9, instead of 11. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] shows that the multiplier applicable to persons aged between 51-55 years is 11 and that where the deceased was married and the number of dependent family members is 3, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.7,74,400/- [(8000 + 10%) x 2/3 x 12 x 11].

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) would show that the reasonable amount payable on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-respectively and that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10% in every three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak & Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above metric awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.18,150/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/- each and the first petitioner will also be entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. In view of the compensation granted towards loss of consortium, the petitioners are not entitled for separate compensation under the head loss of love and affection.

In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format herein below :

Sl.

Compensation

Final Amount

Particulars

awarded by the

No

Payable

Tribunal (Rs.)

1

Transport to hospital

1000/-

1000/-

2

Funeral expenses

25,000

18,150/-

3

Dependency

4,13,964/-

7,74,000/-

4

Loss of estate

2500/-

18,150/-

5

Love and affection

1,00,000/-

NIL

6

Loss of consortium

1,00,000/-

48,400/-

7

Pain and suffering

10,000/-

10,000/-

8

Damage to clothes etc.

1,000/-

1,000/-

Total amount Payable

6,53,464/-

8,70,700/-

Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the petitioners is determined as Rs. 8,70,700./-. In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the appellants/petitioners are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.8,70,700./-. (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Seven Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of delay of 282 days in filing the appeal) with proportionate costs from the respondents. The respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.