AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S.Dias, J
The appellant - insurance company was the 2nd respondent in O.P. (MV) No.866/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvananthapuram. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioners before the Tribunal. The appellant has not impleaded the 1st respondent - the owner-cum- driver of the car as a party in the appeal. Hence, the parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Sivarama Subramonian (deceased), the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 and 3. It was their case that, on 21.9.2014, while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-BH-1692 from Kazhakuttom to Kaniyapuram along with his wife - the 1st petitioner and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) 766/2015- when they reached infront of the Kazhakuttom Police Station , a Tata Nano Car bearing Reg. No.KL-08-AZ-9364 (car) driven by the 1st respondent in a negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The 1st petitioner and the deceased sustained serious injuries and the deceased lost his life. The 1st respondent was the owner-cum-driver and the 2nd respondent was the insurer of the car. The deceased was a Gold Appraiser by profession and was the empanelled Appraiser of State Bank of Travancore, Nalanchira branch since 1996. He was also working as an LIC Agent. The deceased was drawing a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.52,35,000/- from the respondents.
The 1st petitioner filed O.P. (MV) No.766/2015 claiming compensation on account of the injuries that she sustained in the accident.
The 1st respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte.
The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the car had a valid insurance coverage. However, it was contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive. The accident occurred also due to the negligence of the deceased.
The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the two claim petitions.
The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A18 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.
The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by its common award allowed the captioned claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to realise an amount of Rs.16,07,000/- from the 2nd respondent.
Aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd respondent/insurer is in appeal.
Heard Sri.Jacob Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent.
The principal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:
(i) the notional monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side; and
(ii) the Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Ground No.(i)
The petitioners had categorically pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a Gold Appraiser by profession. He was the empanelled Appraiser with the State Bank of Travencore, Nalanchira Branch since 1996. They also conteded that the deceased was working as an LIC Agent from 19.11.1992 to 21.9.2014. In order to substantiate their contentions, they produced Exts.A15 and A16 documents to prove the avocation as well as the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, has fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-.
In Pushkar Mehra v. Brij Mohan Kushwala & Others [(2015) 12 SCC 688], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a skilled labourer/ technical supervisor in the year 2010 at Rs.7,000/- per month.
In the instant case, as the accident occurred in the year 2014 and the petitioners having produced Exts.A15 and A16 documents to establish that the deceased was an LIC Agent as well as a Gold Appraiser, I do not find any error in the fixation of the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. Accordingly, Ground No.(i) is answered against the appellant.
Ground No.(ii)
The Tribunal directed the appellant/2nd respondent to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. It is the appellant's contention that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and others [(2014) 1 SCC 244] and Anjani Singh & Others v. Salauddin [(2014) 15 SCC 582] has fixed the rate of interest at the rate of 9% per annum in motor accidents claim cases following the ratio in MCD v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others [(2011) 14 SCC 481]. In the above circumstances, I hold that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 8% per annum is reasonable and is in accordance with law.
On a comprehensive re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and considering the elaborate findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not fiind any error or illegality in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Insurance Company Ltd v Kiran Singh & Ors [2004 (AIR) SCW 4212] has deprecated the practice of insurance companies contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money.
It is to be born-in-mind that the accident occurred in the year 2014 and it is nearly seven years since the petitioners have been knocking at the doors of the courts seeking for the blood money of their bread-winner. It is trite, that the Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion in awarding reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straight jacket formula based on arthimetical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has, after a thread-bare analysis of the facts and the law, has judicially exercised its powers based on the provisions of the Act and the authoritative precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while arriviing at the conclusion in the impugned award. I do not find any justifiable grounds in the memorandum of appeal warranting the admission of the appeal at this stage, which would only be a wastage of judicial time and harassment to the respondents. Therefore, in the light of Order XLI and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I do not find any ground to issue notice to the respondents.
In the result, following the ratio in Kiran Singh (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold.