High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-05Appeal disposed of; enhanced total compensation...

Abdulla and Kunhipathu v. Darshan Singh Sandhu and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2022-01-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of in part. The total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 11,08,800. After deducting Rs. 5,78,000 already awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are entitled to an additional Rs. 5,30,800, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing until realization, and the 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of this judgment, with proportionate costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; enhanced total compensation; insurer to deposit enhanced amount within two months; interest and costs as directed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdulla
Kunhipathu

Respondents

Darshan Singh Sandhu
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• U. P. Balakrishnan
• K. R. Avinash (Kunnath)

Counsels for Respondents

• M. Jacob Murickan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) hears MACA 2475 of 2014, an appeal by Abdulla and Kunhipathu challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara’s award in O.P. (MV) 1334/2008 for the death of their son Aflah in a 2008 accident. The accident occurred on 06.10.2008 when a tanker lorry, driven by the 2nd respondent and owned by the 1st respondent, collided with the motorcycle on which Aflah and Thwelheth were travelling; both succumbed. The 3rd respondent insurer contested, arguing Thwelheth did not have a valid license and contributed to the accident, and that the claimed heads were excessive. The Tribunal concluded the accident was due to negligence by the lorry driver, awarding Rs. 5,78,000 across heads such as transport to hospital, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and future economic benefits, while disallowing several items like extra nourishment and medical expenses. In the appeal, the petitioners argue that the award undervalued the claim, re-fix the deceased’s notional income at Rs.6,500, add 40% future prospects, yielding Rs.9,100 per month; apply multiplier 18 and 50% personal living deduction to compute Rs.9,82,800 as dependency, and claim enhanced compensation under other heads. They rely on Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur ratios to justify adjusting losses (loss of consortium, funeral expenses, estate, etc.). The court ultimately increases total compensation to Rs.11,08,800 and directs the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months with 7.5% interest.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi framework for compensation in MACT cases (2017) 16 SCC 680
Satinder Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 3076
N. Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 (6) KHC 163

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 5,78,000 is inadequate. They recompute the deceased’s notional income for 2008 as Rs. 6,500 per month (a 2nd-year degree student not earning at the time). With 40% future prospects, the notional monthly income becomes Rs. 9,100. Applying a multiplier of 18 and a 50% deduction for personal living expenses yields a dependency of Rs. 9,82,800 per year, with an enhanced dependency of Rs. 6,04,800 over the tribunal’s figure of Rs. 3,78,000. They invoke the Pranay Sethi framework to re-balance heads: loss of consortium Rs. 88,000 (40,000 each with 10% increases for every 3 years), and funeral expenses Rs. 16,500; loss of estate Rs. 11,500; future economic benefits revised to Rs. 9,82,800, giving a total of Rs. 11,08,800. They follow the United India Insurance decision that there is no separate award for love and affection where consortium is granted. They seek interest at 7.5% and deposit within two months.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the claim: the driver allegedly lacked a valid driving license and contributed to the accident; the lorry was insured, but the claimed heads are excessive. The insurer admits coverage but opposes enhanced sums and argues against several heads being payable; they dispute the higher assessments and reliance on the head-by-head augmentation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pranay Sethi and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for the four-head framework and enhancement principles applied in calculating compensation.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur	AIR 2020 SC 3076	Positive	Cited for the proposition that when compensation is awarded under loss of consortium, there is no need for a separate head for loss of love and affection.
N. Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd	2021 (6) KHC 163	Positive	Cited for related ratio on loss of consortium and integration of Pranay Sethi framework.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdulla and Kunhipathu v. Darshan Singh Sandhu and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1334/2008 DATED 26.11.2013 OF** **THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VADAKARA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** **1 ABDULLA,AGED 54 YEARS S/O.MAMMU, THENGALAKANDY HOUSE, VANIMEL AMSOM,MAMBILAKKOL AMSOM, VANIMEL (P.O), VATAKARA TALUK.** - **2 KUNHIPATHU, AGED 49 YEARS** **W/O.ABDULLA, THENGALAKANDY HOUSE, VANIMEL AMSOM,MAMBILAKKOL DESOM, VANIMEL (P.O), VATAKARA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** - ***1 DARSHAN SINGH SANDHU** - **C-20/1-4,SECTION 4,PALMBEACH CHS,NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI,THANE,MAHARASHTRA STATE 400 705** - **2 MR.MANOJ, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAM MILAN, TRANSPAR NAGAR,GARAKHPUR , SATAINI BARDAH,AZAMGARH – 400702 [*RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DTD. 13.10.21 IN I.A.NO.2/21]** **3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THANA PO, MAHARASHTRA STATE 400 705** ## **R3 BY ADV M.JACOB MURICKAN** ## **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P. (MV)No.1334/2008, on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara. The parties are referred to as per the status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners are the parents of deceased Aflah, who died in an accident on 06.10.2008. While the deceased Aflah was pillion riding on a motor cycle with Thwelheth, the motor cycle was hit by a tanker lorry bearing Registration No. MH43-U 2146 driven by the 2[nd] respondent and owned by the 1[st] respondent. Both Aflah and Thwelheth succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident. The 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the said lorry. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.18,50,000/as compensation for the death of their son. 3.The claim petition was considered and disposed of along with O.P.(M.V) No. 1333/2008 filed by the parents of deceased Thwelheth by a common award. The **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** respondents 1 and 2 were set ex-parte. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company contested the claim and filed a written statement contending that the deceased Thwelheth was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and he contributed to the accident. The insurance company also contended that the amounts claimed under various heads are excessive. They, however, admitted that the lorry was insured with them at the time of the accident. 4.The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent, the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,78,000/- as total compensation for the death of Aflah under various heads as under: ||Head of claim|Amount claimed (Rs)|Amount Awarded (Rs)|Basis-vital details in a nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|5000|5000|| |2|Extra nourishment|5000|Not allowed|| **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** |3|Damage to clothing & articles|5000|Not allowed|| |---|---|---|---|---| |4|Funeral expenses|5000|5000|| |5|Loss of estate|5000|5000|| |6|Medical expenses incurred before death|25000|Not allowed|| |7|Loss of love and afection|200000|50000|| |8|Shortened expectation of life|400000|35000|| |9|Loss of support and assistance to the applicants|500000|75000|| |10|Future economic benefts and dependency|600000|378000|| |11|Obseques|50000|25000|| |12|Pain and sufering|50000|Not allowed|| ||Total|1850000|578000|| ## 5. According to the petitioners, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is totally inadequate. The Tribunal has **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-. The deceased was a 2[nd] year Degree student at the time of the accident. He had not started earning any income at the time of his death. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased as on 2008 has to be fixed notionally and I re-fix the same as Rs.6,500/-. 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed as Rs.9,100/- [6500 + 2600]. Since the deceased was aged 18 years, the multiplier to be adopted is '18'. The deceased being a bachelor, there shall be a deduction of 50% towards personal living expenses. Therefore, the compensation towards loss of dependency is re-calculated as **Rs.9,82,800/-** [9100 x 12 x 18 x 50/100]. The petitioners are therefore entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs. 6,04,800/- (9,82,800-3,78,000) under the head loss of dependency. 6. Towards loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, whereas no **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** amount has been awarded under the head loss of consortium. Following the ratio of the decision in _**v.**_ **National Insurance Company Limited Pranay Sethi and Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** and **N.Jayasree and others** _**v**_ **. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd (2021 (6) KHC 163)** , the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with 10% increase for every 3 years. Accordingly, for loss of consortium the petitioners are entitled for Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd.** _**v.**_ **Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076]** , that, when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no need to award compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head. Since the petitioners are entitled for Rs.88,000/towards loss of consortium, no further amount is to be awarded under the head loss of love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** amount of **Rs.38,000/-** (88,000-50,000) under the head loss of consortium. 7. Towards funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Going by the principles laid down in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. With an enhancement of 10% for every 3 years, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,500/(15000+1500) towards compensation for funeral expenses. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.11,500/-** [16,500-5000] under the head . funeral expenses 8.The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/ towards loss loss of estate. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi and Ors.** (supra), the compensation payable under the conventional head of loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/-. The same has to be enhanced on percentage basis, at the **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** rate of 10%, in a span of every three years. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced amount of **Rs.11,500/-** (16500-5000) as compensation under the head loss of estate. 9. The petitioners have been awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards shortened expectation of life and Rs.25,000/- under the head obsequies. I find that no amount can be awarded under the said heads. The petitioners are awarded Rs.75,000/- under the head loss of support and assistance to the applicants. The petitioners are not entitled to compensation under the head loss of support and assistance to the applicants. Therefore, an amount of **Rs.1,35,000/-** [35,000+25,000+75,000] has to be deducted under the said heads. 10. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,08,800/- under the following heads: **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** ||Head of claim|Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)|Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|5000|5000| |2|Extra nourishment|Not allowed|-| |3|Damage to clothing & articles|Not allowed|-| |4|Funeral expenses|5000|16,500| |5|Loss of estate|5000|16,500| |6|Medical expenses incurred before death|Not allowed|-| |7|Loss of love and afection/Consortium|50000|88,000| |8|Shortened expectation of life|35000|Nil| |9|Loss of support and assistance to the applicants|75000|Nil| |10|Future economic benefts and dependency|378000|9,82,800| |11|Obsequies|25000|Nil| |12|Pain and sufering|Not allowed|Nil| ||Total|5,78,000|11,08,800| **MACA NO. 2475 OF 2014** 11. After deducting the amount of Rs.5,78,000/already awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners will be entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.5,30,800/-** [11,08,800 – 5,78,000] (Rupees Five lakhs thirty thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB/06/01/2022