High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-01-11Partly allowed; enhanced compensation by ₹92,00...

Abdullakutty and others v. C. Rajan and others and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 1801 of 2011 (B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
C.K. Abdul Rehim
Judgment Date: 2012-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The Tribunal’s total compensation is enhanced by ₹92,000. The revised award includes ₹2,80,000 for loss of estate and dependency (up from ₹2,10,000), ₹10,000 more for love and affection, ₹5,000 for funeral expenses, and ₹10,000 for pain and suffering. Interest on the additional amount is fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; enhanced compensation by ₹92,000 with 7.5% interest from petition filing date.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdullakutty
Kadeedha
Shajila
HARS

Respondents

C. Rajan
G.M. Pooranachandran
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Vidyasagar

Counsels for Respondents

• Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• P. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court heard MACA No. 1801 of 2011 (B) arising from OP(MV).465/2006 (Motor Accidents Claims) concerning the death of a motorcyclist in a collision with a bus. The deceased, a 28-year-old bachelor, was riding a motorcycle when struck by a bus, sustaining fatal injuries. The Tribunal assessed compensation with a notional monthly income of ₹3,500 and applied a 10-year multiplier based on the parents’ ages, awarding ₹2,10,000 for loss of dependency. The appellants (parents and siblings) contended that the award was inadequate in respect of loss of estate and dependency, loss of love and affection, and funeral expenses, and urged that compensation for pain and suffering be added. They relied on precedents such as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muneer (2003(1) KLT 137), followed by Sumathikutty v. Manoj N. and others (2011(4) KHC 60), arguing that the Tribunal should ensure compensation does not fall below the Section 163A ceiling. The respondents contended the case does not fall within Section 163A since the annual income exceeded ₹40,000. The High Court held the notional income reasonable for 2006, reduced personal expenses deduction to 1/3, and upheld the multiplier. It reworked compensation for loss of estate and dependency to ₹2,80,000, increased loss of love and affection by ₹10,000, funeral expenses to ₹5,000, and added ₹10,000 for pain and suffering, resulting in a total enhancement of ₹92,000 with 7.5% interest from the petition date until payment. The appeal was partly allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income approach for calculating dependency
Multiplier principle for death claims
1/3 deduction for personal expenses (restriction of personal living expenses)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal’s compensation for loss of estate and dependency, plus amounts for pain and suffering, love and affection, and funeral expenses were inadequate. They relied on Supreme Court judgments (e.g., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muneer) and Sumathikutty to urge that compensation should be adjusted to comply with Section 163A limits when applicable and contended that higher adverse notional incomes and deductions were necessary to reflect dependents’ loss. They sought enhanced compensation, including for pain and suffering.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended the case does not fall within Section 163A since the deceased’s annual income exceeded ₹40,000. They supported the Tribunal’s assessment and argued that the notional income of ₹3,500 was reasonable for 2006 and that 50% personal expenses deduction was appropriate. They maintained the multiplier of 10 and questioned additional enhancements beyond the Tribunal’s award.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muneer	2003(1) KLT 137	Distinguished	Court acknowledges the precedents but refuses to apply the 163A principle here since the deceased’s claimed income exceeded the threshold; facts diverge from those in Muneer.
Sumathikutty v. Manoj N. and others	2011(4) KHC 60	Distinguished	Cited as following the Muneer principle but not applicable to the present facts; the court distinguishes due to the income level and case specifics.

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 Abdullakutty and others v. C. Rajan and others and Oriental Insurance Company 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 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/21ST POUSHA 1933 MACA.No. 1801 of 2011 (B ) ================== OP(MV).465/2006 of M.A.C.T., MANJERI ========== APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS ================== 1. ABDULLAKUTTY, MARAKKARKUNNATH HOUSE, VALIYAD, P.O. KODUR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KADEEJA, W/O ABDULLAKUTTY, MARAKKARKUNNATH HOUSE, VALIYAD, P.O. KODUR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. SHAJILA, D/O ABDULLAKUTTY, MARAKKARKUNNATH HOUSE, VALIYAD, P.O. KODUR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. HARS, S/O ABDULLAKUTTY, MARAKKARKUNNATH HOUSE, VALIYAD, P.O., KODUR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV.SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS ===================== 1. C. RAJAN, S/O APPUNNI NAIR, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, VETTAMBALAM, KUMARAMPUTHUR P.O., PALAKKAD - 67883 2. G.M.POORNACHANDRAN, GEETHAM, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD - 678013. MACA.No. 1801 of 2011 (B ) -2- 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SOBHA T.S.M. COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678001. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -----------------------------------------------M. A. C. A No.1801 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of January, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** _Abdul Rehim, J_ Parents and siblings of a person died in a motor vehicle accident, are the appellants. The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The deceased, who was the rider of a Motor Cycle, sustained fatal injuries when a Bus hit against the Motor Cycle on which he was riding. He was a bachelor at the age of 28 years, at the time of death. Considering the fact that there was no proof adduced with respect to income of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of ` 3,500/- per month. Considering the average age of the parents, the multiplier is adopted as 10. The Tribunal awarded compensation of ` 2,10,000/- towards loss of dependency. M. A. C. A No.1801 of 2011 -2- 2. In the appeal it is contended that the amount awarded under the head of loss of estate and dependency is highly inadequate. It is also contended that amounts awarded under different other heads are insufficient. A further ground raised in the appeal is regarding not awarding of any compensation under the head of pain and sufferings. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised contention relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muneer (2003(1) KLT 137) which is followed by a Division of this Court in Sumathikutty. v. Manoj N. and others (2011(4) KHC 60) that the Tribunal ought to have ensured that the compensation paid should not have fallen below the amount payable under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. 3. Per contra Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company -3- M. A. C. A No.1801 of 2011 contended that the claim in the case at hand will not fall within the category mentioned under Section 163A, because the annual income of the deceased is above ` 40,000/-. We are of the opinion that since the petitioner had claimed much higher amount than the limit prescribed under Section 163A, the legal principle adopted in the precedents cited cannot be brought into application. We are of the opinion that the notional income of ` 3,500/- adopted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, considering the fact that the accident occurred during the year 2006. 4. Further contention raised by the appellants is regarding deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. We notice that the deceased was the elder child of the parents and the two siblings who joined as claimants are younger to him. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that, presumably the deceased might have been contributing M. A. C. A No.1801 of 2011 -4- considerable amounts to the family. Therefore, we are of the opinion that deduction towards personal expenses can be limited at[1] /3rd. We find no infirmity in the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, considering average age of both the parents. Under such circumstances, the compensation for loss of estate and dependency is re-worked at ` 2,80,000/instead of ` 2,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Considering compensation awarded under other heads, we are of the view that the amount of compensation under the head of loss of love and affection can be increased by ` 10,000/- more, and the compensation for funeral expenses can be re-fixed at ` 5,000/-. We are further inclined to award a sum of ` 10,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings. Thus the appellants are entitled to a total enhancement of ` 92,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing M. A. C. A No.1801 of 2011 -5- the total compensation fixed by the Tribunal by a further sum of ` 92,000/-. The additional compensation awarded in this appeal will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE