Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Meenakumari

C.S.Dias, J

The appellant - Insurance Company was the second respondent in OP(MV) No.9/2008 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents in the appeal were the supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 before the Tribunal. The first petitioner died

during the pendency of the claim petition. Pursuant to the order in IA 4165/2010 dated 22.8.2014, supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 â€" the wife and

children of the deceased original petitioner - were impleaded in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their

status in the claim petition.

The original petitioner had filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, contending that on 28.10.2007, while

the first petitioner â€" Kumaran Nair (deceased) â€" was walking through the Kawdiar -Ambalamukku public road, a car bearing registration No.KL-

01/Q 4572, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the deceased. The deceased sustained

serious injuries and was undergoing treatment. Ultimately, the deceased committed suicide on 14.1.2009. The petitioners 2 to 4 were impleaded as

supplemental petitioners and consequential amendments were carried out. The petitioners contended that the accident occurred on account of the

rashness on the part of the first respondent who was also the owner of the vehicle and that the second respondent was the insurer of the vehicle. The

deceased was a helper in KTDC and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the petitioners sought for compensation from the respondents

1 and 2, which they quantified at Rs.19,05,000/-. but limited to Rs.15,00,000/-.

The first respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte.

The second respondent - Insurance Company - filed a written-statement, inter-alia, contending that claim petition was not maintainable. The second

respondent also disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. However, the second respondent admitted that the vehicle had a valid

insurance policy.

The second petitioner was examined as PW1 and a Doctor who treated the deceased was examined as PW2 and Exts A1 to A12 were marked

through them in evidence.

The Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the clam petition, in part, by directing the second respondent to pay the petitioners 2 to 4 an amount of

Rs.11,20,500/- with interest and costs.

Aggrieved by the award, the second respondent is in appeal.

Heard Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.R.T Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

The principal ground of challenge in the memorandum of appeal is that the deceased did not loose his life on account of the accident.

On a perusal of the available materials on record and the impugned award, it can be gathered that the petitioners had produced Ext A2 charge-

sheet, wherein it has been specifically found that it was due to the negligence of the first respondent that the accident occurred. Ext A3 wound

certificate and Ext A4 discharge summary substantiates that the deceased had to undergo prolonged treatment on account of the injuries. PW2, the

Doctor who treated the deceased has deposed that the deceased suffered traumatic rupture of urethra and catheterisation was not possible and also

the deceased had urinary incontinence, which leads a person to a very depressing state. The second petitioner â€" PW1 had deposed that the

deceased could not carry on his day-to-day affairs due to his lose of vision and other ailments due to the accident. It was out of the continuous mental

stress, anxieties and fears that led him to take the drastic step to end his life. The Tribunal found that there was a clear link between the accidental

injuries and the depression which led to the deceased taking away his life because the deceased felt that he was a great burden to his relatives.

Accordingly, it was held that the mental depression developed consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident, which I find to be quite convincing

and justifiable. Most importantly, the respondents had not let in any contra evidence to substantiate their insinuation. Mere assertion is not proof.

Although the petitioners had claimed that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal only fixed his notional income at

Rs.6,500/- per month. It was based on the said notional income and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the Tribunal fixed the compensation for loss of dependency, future prospects and pecuniary and

conventional heads of compensation.

I do not find any error or illegality in the elaborate threadbare appreciation of facts by the Tribunal, particularly with regard to the death of the

deceased due to the depression caused on account of the accident and fixation of compensation.

On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, materials on record, and the elaborate findings of the Tribunal, I do not find that there is any error

or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

The Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kiran Sing & 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

also observed that if such instances are brought to the notice of the court, the court would be obliged to dismiss such appeals with heavy cost apart

from deprecating such parties.

It is to be borne in mind that the accident occurred as early as on 28.10.2007. It is more than 13 years since the petitioners have been knocking at

the doors of the Court seeking compensation on account of the death of their breadwinner. Moreover, it is trite that the Tribunals are permitted to do

some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any strait jacket formula

based on arithmetical precision or mathematical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has judicially exercised its powers based on the provisions in the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the authoritative precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, while arriving at the conclusion that the

deceased lost his life on account of the accident and has awarded reasonable and just compensation. I do not find any justifiable ground in the

memorandum of appeal warranting admission of the appeal, which will only be a wastage of judicial time and a harassment to the respondents 1 to

3/petitioners 2 to 4. Following the ratio in Kiran Sing (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. Therefore, I

dismiss the appeal at the threshold.