20 years after pastor’s death, Kerala High Court doubles payout: Why insurance firm’s ‘twin FIR’ argument failed

Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen upheld the MACT’s finding.

“Though the Investigating Officer was examined, the insurance company failed to bring out any positive evidence in the cross-examination to substantiate their contentions. The tribunal has considered the aforesaid issue in detail and found that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the lorry,” the court said on February 12.

2006 accident: A life cut short

• The case dates back to June 17, 2006.
• At around 11 am, Philip, a pastor by vocation, was riding his motorcycle in Thrissur when a truck, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck him.
• According to the records, Philip sustained grievous injuries and succumbed the same day.
• His death left behind his 66-year-old wife, Annamma Philip, and two sons, Jiji Philip and Shibu Philip.
• The family approached the MACT, Thrissur, later that year, seeking a compensation of Rs 3.78 lakh (limited to Rs 3.70 lakh) for the loss of life.
• A separate petition was also filed for compensation towards damage to the motorcycle.
• On May 31, 2013, the tribunal awarded Rs 2.70 lakh for the death claim and Rs 12,000 for the damage to the bike, both carrying 8 per cent interest from the date of the petition till realisation.
• Unsatisfied with the findings, both sides moved the high court in 2014, the insurance company challenging liability and quantum, and the claimants seeking enhancement.

Two FIRs, one chargesheet: Core dispute

• Before the high court, the insurance company argued that the deceased himself was partly responsible for the accident.
• It contended that the motorcyclist entered the national highway from the south without exercising due care.
• The motorcycle collided with the lateral front portion of the truck.
• There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
• Two FIRs were registered, one allegedly blaming the deceased.
• The insurer further argued that the investigating officer ought to have chargesheeted both drivers if there were conflicting versions.
• However, the court closely examined the record.
• While two FIRs were indeed registered, the final chargesheet was filed only against the truck driver after investigation.
• The investigating officer admitted during evidence that he had signed only one FIR and that the chargesheet was ultimately made out against the truck driver after proper investigation.
• The insurer could not elicit any material contradiction in cross-examination.
• The court noted that the motorcycle had already crossed nearly two-thirds of the highway toward the northern side when the impact occurred.
• The truck, coming from behind, could have noticed the two-wheeler and avoided the accident had it been driven at a reasonable speed.
• “I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding,” the court observed, affirming the tribunal’s conclusion that the truck driver alone was negligent.
• The appeals filed by the insurance company were accordingly dismissed.

Reassessing pastor’s income

• The court found that the tribunal had fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 3,500, though the claimants had asserted Rs 6,000.
• Given that the accident occurred in 2006, the high court referred to Supreme Court precedents on notional income for that period and revised the monthly income to Rs 5,500.
• This recalibration had a significant impact on the calculation of “loss of dependency”, the financial loss suffered by the family due to the breadwinner’s death.
• The court recalculated the compensation under this head at Rs 3,08,000.
• Since the tribunal had awarded Rs 1,96,000, the claimants became entitled to an additional Rs 1,12,000.

Conventional heads

• The court also revisited the amounts granted under conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium.
• Funeral expenses were enhanced to Rs 18,150 (granting an additional Rs 13,150).
• Loss of estate was enhanced to Rs 18,150 (additional Rs 13,150).
• Loss of consortium was enhanced to Rs 1,45,200 for the three claimants collectively, resulting in an additional Rs 1,20,200.
• At the same time, the court deleted Rs 25,000 earlier awarded under the head “loss of love and affection,” observing that once consortium is granted, awarding a separate amount under that head would amount to duplication of compensation.
• The court found no reason to interfere with other heads of compensation, describing them as just and reasonable.

Total relief raised by over Rs 5 lakh

• With the modifications, the total compensation rose from Rs 2,70,000 to Rs 5,03,500.
• The claimants were awarded an additional Rs 2,33,500 with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, along with proportionate costs.
• The insurer has been directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express