COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. SOUTHERN ROCKS AND MINERALS PRIVTE LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943 MACA.No.599 OF 2013 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 378/2011 DATED 14-12-2012 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: CHOLAMANDALAM M/S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CHENNAI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER-CLAIMS, ACEL ESTATE, IYYATTIL JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: 1 MATHEW @ MATHAYI S/O LATE PAILI, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, PALAKKOLLI THAMASAM, PALAKKOLLI P.O., PULPALLY VILLAGE, S.BATHERI TALUK, PIN-673579. 2 MARY W/O. MATHEW, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, PALAKKOLLI THAMASAM, PALAKKOLLI P.O., PULPALLY VILLAGE, S.BATHERI TALUK, PIN-673579. R1 BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-03-2021, THE COURT ON 31-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.No.599 OF 2013 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 599 of 2013 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March 2021 JUDGMENT The 2nd respondent in O.P(M.V). No. 378/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta is the appellant in this appeal. Respondents herein are the petitioners in the above claim petition. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The short facts are like this: - On 04.06.2011, at about 8.45 a.m., the deceased 'Joby Mathew' was riding on a motor bike bearing Registration No. KL-01/8522 from Petta side to Anayara side. When he reached at Anayara, Kallumoddu, a mini bus bearing Registration No. KL-16/2188 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the bike. As a result of the

MACA.No.599 OF 2013 3 impact, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, the claimants seek compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the driver cum owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. To substantiate the case, Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the petitioners and one witness was examined as PW1. Exhibit X1 to X3 were marked as third party exhibits. After going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that, petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.19,59,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ffity Nine Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, 2nd respondent filed this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent and the learned Senior counsel for respondents/petitioners 1 & 2.

MACA.No.599 OF 2013 4 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the multiplier used by the Tribunal is not correct. The learned counsel also submitted that the income fixed by the Tribunal is also on the higher side, because the gross income as per Ext.A1 Salary Certificate is only Rs.18,750/-. The learned counsel also submitted that while assessing the compensation for loss of dependancy, the income tax is not deducted. 6. I see no reason to accept the above contentions of the appellant. The deceased was aged 29 years and the correct multiplier is '17' based on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT 802]. Tribunal also used the multiplier '17'. Similarly, as per Exhibit A1, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.19,000/-. Since, future prospects is also not added, according to me, the

MACA.No.599 OF 2013 5 monthly income fixed by the Tribunal needs no interference. Moreover, the Tribunal has not awarded any reasonable amount towards consortium in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I think that the Tribunal awarded a just and reasonable compensation and there is nothing to interfere in this case in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE avs