High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-07-19The appeal is allowed; the impugned award is mo...

A.M. Chacko and others v. K. Ganesh Moorthy and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.2978 of 2008 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
A. V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date: 2012-07-19
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; impugned award modified as follows: the loss of dependency is recalculated to ₹4,20,000 (from ₹1,70,000) reflecting a notional income of ₹5,000/month and a 14-year multiplier per Sarla Verma; an additional ₹10,000 is awarded for pain and suffering; ₹2,000 for funeral expenses; ₹5,000 for loss of estate. The total enhancement over the Tribunal’s award is ₹2,67,000, and interest on the total amount is increased to 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed; the impugned award is modified as described above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.M. Chacko
Rosamma Chacko
Dency Chacko
Soumya Chacko

Respondents

K. Ganesh Moorthy @ Ganesh
Thiru S.C Kumar
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Jaju Babu
• M. U. Vijayalakshmi
• T.R. Sadeesan
• T.S. Shyam Prasanth

Case Synopsis & Summary

Appellants are the unfortunate parents and siblings of Prasanth Chacko, who died in a road traffic accident on 14 January 2002 when his motorcycle was struck by a lorry. The MACT awarded ₹2,14,000 as compensation, holding negligence against the lorry driver and the insurer liable to pay under the policy. In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the appellants challenge the adequacy of the compensation, particularly for loss of dependency. They contend that Prasanth, aged about 20 and a third-year mechanical engineering student, was a promising student whose earnings potential warranted a higher notional income. The Tribunal had fixed notional income at ₹1,250 per month; the appellants urge ₹5,000 per month, arguing future prospects should be considered. They rely on the Supreme Court decisions summarized in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, to apply a multiplier appropriate to the deceased’s age. The appellants also argued for applying the multiplier and deducting one-half of income for personal expenses. The court agrees that, applying Sarla Verma guidelines, the correct multiplier for the age group of the mother (the youngest parent) is 14, and the loss of dependency should be ₹4,20,000 rather than ₹1,70,000. Additional amounts for pain and suffering (₹10,000), funeral expenses (₹2,000), and loss of estate (₹5,000) are awarded. The court increases interest to 7% and allows the appeal, modifying the award accordingly, effectively increasing the total compensation by ₹2,67,000 beyond the Tribunal’s award.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 SC) - Guidelines on calculation of damages: notional income, future prospects, and multiplier; deduction of 1/2 income for personal expenses.
Multiplier principle and notional income guidelines derived from Sarla Verma (Supreme Court)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the compensation for loss of dependency was inadequate. Prasanth, aged about 20 and pursuing third year of mechanical engineering, had significant future prospects. The Tribunal fixed notional income at ₹1,250/month; they urged ₹5,000/month in line with his potential and applied the multiplier guidelines from Sarla Verma to calculate a higher dependency award, along with deductions for personal expenses. They sought enhanced sums for pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Contentions of Respondents

No explicit, separate argument section for the respondents is provided in the excerpt. The respondents’ counsel is referenced as representing the third respondent insurer; the judgment focuses on the appellants’ case for enhancement and does not detail respondents’ opposing submissions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010(2) KLT 802 SC	Positive	Used as the controlling authority for multiplier selection and guidelines on notional income and deductions in calculating compensation.

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 A.M. Chacko and others v. K. Ganesh Moorthy and others 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 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2012/28TH ASHADHA 1934 MACA.No. 2978 of 2008 (D) ------------------------------OPMV.152/2002 of MACT, KALPETTA --------- ## APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. A.M. CHACKO, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 63 YEARS, EDAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, DOWN BAZAR, PULPALLY SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT (FATHER OF THE DECEASED PRASANTH CHACKO) 2. ROSAMMA CHACKO, W/O. A.M. CHACKO, AGED 50 YEARS, EDAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, DOWN BAZAR PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED PRASANTH CHACKO) 3. DENCY CHACKO, D/O. A.M. CHACKO, AGED 29 YEARS, EDAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, DOWN BAZAR PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT (SISTER OF THE DECEASED PRASANTH CHACKO) 4. SOUMYA CHACKO, D/O. CHACKO, AGERD 27 YEARS, EDAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, DOWN BAZAR PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT (SISTER OF THE DECEASED PRASANTH CHACKO) BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. K. GANESH MOORTHY @ GANESH, S/O. KALI ANNAN, NO. 338, METTUPALAYAM ROAD GANDHI NAGAR SATHYAMANGALAM.P.O (DRIVER OF THE LORRY NO. 43/1886) MACA.No. 2978 of 2008 (D) -2- ## 2. THIRU S.C KUMAR, S/O. CHINNAPPA GOWDAR, OLD NO.78, NEW NO.17 THELKARADU STREET NO.5, RANGASAMUDRAM.P.O SATHYAMANGALAM (OWNER OF THE LORRY NO. T.N 43/1886) ## 3. BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE MAIN ROAD, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM, 63842 NO. 458712. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. -----------------------------------------------M. A. C. A No.2978 of 2008 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of July, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Ramakrishna Pillai, J_ The appellants are the unfortunate parents and siblings of one Prasanth Chacko who met with his death in a road traffic accident occurred on 14/01/02 while pillion riding a motorcycle which was hit down by a lorry coming from the opposite direction. Against the claim of ` 20 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 2,14,000/- as compensation attributing negligence against the second respondent who was the driver of the lorry and saddling the third respondent with the liability of paying the compensation as they have admitted the policy of the offending vehicle. 2. In this appeal, the appellants are challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. M. A. C. A No.2978 of 2008 -2- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company. The impugned award was also perused. 4. The main grievance voiced against the award by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were not awarded adequate compensation for loss of dependency. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased Prasanth Chacko was only 20 years at the time of the accident and he was doing his third year mechanical engineering in an engineering college at Hossur. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, he was a promising brilliant student. The learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at ` 1,250/- for arriving at the compensation for loss of dependency. The accident was in the year 2002. Considering the age of the deceased, the academic brilliance of the deceased as well as his future prospects we fix the notional income of the deceased at ` 5,000/-. The first appellant who is the father of M. A. C. A No.2978 of 2008 -3- the deceased was aged 57 years and the second appellant who is the mother of the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of the accident. For computing the compensation for loss of dependency we lean ourselves to the multiplier applicable to the age group of mother who is younger among the parents. The correct multiplier applicable to the age group of the mother who is the second appellant as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 SC) is 14. As the deceased was unmarried one half of the income has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive. When the dependency compensation is re-calculated as above it will stand enhanced to ` 4,20,000/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only ` 1,70,000/- under that head, the appellants become entitled to get an additional sum of ` 2,50,000/towards compensation for loss of dependency. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the M. A. C. A No.2978 of 2008 -4- appellants that the death was instantaneous. However, no amount was seen awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation for pain and suffering. Taking into account the excruciating pain undergone by the deceased at the time of his death, we are inclined to award a sum of ` 10,000/towards compensation for pain and suffering. 6. We also notice that the learned Tribunal was miserly in awarding compensation for funeral expenses. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal under that head is only ` 3,000/- we award an additional sum of ` 2,000/- under that head. 7. Towards loss of estate no amount was seen awarded by the Tribunal and we award to the appellants a sum of ` 5,000/- under that head. 8. As the learned Tribunal has awarded a fair and reasonable sum as compensation for loss of love and affection, we are not awarding any additional amount under that head. M. A. C. A No.2978 of 2008 -5- 9. Thus in total the appellants get a sum of ` 2,67,000/over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is only 6%. We feel justification in awarding 7% interest on the amount already awarded as well as on the additional amount awarded by us. Hence, we make it clear that the amount already awarded as well as the additional amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 10. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above. Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M. A. C. A No.2978 of 2008 -6-