Amina Beevi and others v Rajendran and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2021-11-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. Notable recalculations: loss of dependency increased to Rs 10,51,875; additional compensation of Rs 3,24,875 granted; loss of consortium raised to Rs 1,60,000; funeral expenses reduced to Rs 15,000; loss of estate awarded Rs 15,000. The insurer must deposit the enhanced amount with interest within two months from receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation awarded and directed deposit by insurer within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Amina Beevi
Aniya Beevi
Anwar
Anshad

Respondents

Rajendran, S/o. Divakaran, Aswathy Bhavan, Sastamcotta P.O., Kunnathoor -690520
Salih, aged 40, S/o. Ibrahimkutty Puthumangalaththu Veedu, Panapatti, Sastamcotta
The Branch Manager, CHOLA M.S. General Insurance Motor Policy, Kochi Branch, Ernakulam-682016

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. Rajendran
• K. R. Ranjith

Counsels for Respondents

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in a deceased auto-rickshaw accident involving Thangal Kunju. The appellants (wife and children) challenge an award of Rs 9,19,000 granted by the Tribunal to the claimants, arising from the death of Thangal Kunju in October 2012 after his vehicle collided with another auto-rickshaw driven by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal held the 2nd respondent negligent, directed the insurer to satisfy the award, and permitted recovery from the owner (1st respondent) and driver (2nd respondent) since the driver did not produce a valid driving license. The 1st respondent’s notice was returned as unclaimed, so service was dispensed with. The insurer contends the compensation is excessive. The appellants submit notional income should be Rs 8,500 per month (per Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram) with a multiplier of 11 and 25% future prospects; they seek enhancement across heads including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. In part allowing the appeal, the High Court recalculates loss of dependency to Rs 10,51,875, awards an additional Rs 3,24,875, increases loss of consortium to Rs 1,60,000, and awards Rs 15,000 for loss of estate while reducing funeral expenses to Rs 15,000; orders deposit of enhanced sums with 9% interest. The insurer is to deposit within two months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle for self-employed deceased (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited) – Rs 8,500 per month
Multiplier method for calculating loss of dependency (multiplier 11) with 25% future prospects added
3/4 rule in dependency computation (yearly loss x 12 x 11 x 3/4)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend the Tribunal erred in not applying Ramachandrappa’s principle for notional income and neglected heads of compensation; they seek enhancement of dependency loss using Rs 8,500 monthly income with multiplier 11 and 25% future prospects, along with increased awards for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. They argue for notional income and higher future prospects to yield greater compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the award is excessive and that the 2nd respondent lacked a valid driving license; the insurer disputes the sums claimed and questions amplification of heads of damages.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	2011 (13) SCC 236 : AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used to fix the notional monthly income for the deceased (Rs 8,500) and to justify applying future prospects in calculating dependency loss.

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** **SATURDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1943 MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.2.2016 IN OPMV 397/2013 OF MOTOR** **ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** - **1 AMINA BEEVI,AGED 50 YEARS** - **W/O. THANGAL KUNJU, ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK** - **2 ANSIYA BEEVI, AGED 30 YEARS D/O. THANGAL KUNJU ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK** - **3 ANWAR,AGED 24 YEARS S/O. THANGAL KUNJU ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK** - **4 ANSHAD,AGED 21 YEARS S/O.THANGAL KUNJU ANWAR MANZIL, PADINJATTAKKARA PO., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK** **BY ADVS.** - **SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 RAJENDRAN, S/O. DIVAKARAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN, SASTHAMCOTTA PO.,KUNNATHOOR -690520** - **2 SALIH, AGED 40 S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY PUTHUMANGALATHU VEEU, PANAPATTI, SASTHAMCOTTA** - **3 THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLA M.S GENERAL INSURANCE MOTOR POLICY; KOCHI BRANCH. ERNAKULAM-682016** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..2..** ## **JUDGMENT** The notice to the 1[st] respondent is returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. The 1[st] respondent in this appeal is the owner of the offending vehicle. It is admitted by the Insurer that the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Therefore, service of notice to the 1[st] respondent is dispensed with. 2. The Appellants are the wife and children of deceased Thangal Kunju, who died in an accident on 31.10.2012. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. The deceased was driving an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No KL.24/D-2495 through Bharanikavu – Thamarakkulam public road and it collided with an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-61/542, driven by the 2[nd] respondent and the deceased was **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..3..** succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. According to the petitioners, the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation. 3. The respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver respectively of the autorickshaw with Reg.No. KL-61/542 remained ex-parte. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company entered appearance and filed written statement and admitted that the autorickshaw with Reg.No. KL61/542 was covered with a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident but contended that the 2[nd] respondent was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. It was also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..4..** Reg.No. KL-61/542 by the 2[nd] respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,19,000/- as total compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition. The insurance company was directed to satisfy the award. Since the 2[nd] respondent did not produce the driving license in spite of the direction of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the 3[rd] respondent insurer is entitled to reimburse the amount from the respondents 1 and 2. 5. The petitioners have preferred this appeal contending that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads. |**Sl.** **No.**|**Heads**|**Amount** **claimed**|**Amount** **awarded (in** **Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earnings from 13.10.12 to till time|13,06,000|Nil| |2.|Partial loss of earnigs|Nil|Nil| |3.|Transport to hospital|4,000|1,000| **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..5..** |4.|Extra nourishment|3,000|Nil| |---|---|---|---| |5.|Damage to clothing and article|2,000|1,000| |6.|Others: 1. Medicine and bystanders etc. 2. Funeral expenses 3. Loss of consortium 4. Love and afection|25,000 10,000 50,000 50,000|Nil 25,000 1,00,000 Nil| |7.|Compensation for pain and suferings|50,000|Nil| |8.|Compensation for continuing permanent disability||Nil| |9.|Compensation for loss of earning power||Nil| |10.|Compensation for loss of dependency|Not claimed|7,92,000| ||Total|15,00,000/-|9,19,000| 6. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal went wrong in taking the monthly income of the deceased as **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..6..** Rs.8,000/-. The deceased was an autorickshaw driver and therefore, as per the decision reported in **Ramachandrappa** _**v**_ **. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236 : AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , the notional monthly income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.8,500/-. The deceased was aged 52 years and self employed. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as '11'. In view of re-fixation of monthly income as Rs.8500, the loss of dependency income by adding 25% towards future prospects is recalculated as [8500+2125=10625]. Hence, the compensation for loss of dependency would come to 10625 x 12 x 11 – ¼ =10,51,875/- Accordingly, I re-fix the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency as Rs.10,51,875/- [10,625x12x11x3/4]. The Tribunal has granted Rs.7,92,000/- under this head and the petitioners are entitled for an additional amount of **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..7..** **Rs.2,59,875/- [10,51,875 – 7,92,000]** under this head. 7. With regard to the compensation awarded under the head loss of consortium, only Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- under this head (40,000x4). Therefore, **Rs.60,000/- [1,60,000 – 1,00,000]** more is awarded under the head loss of consortium. 8. As regards the funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded, for which the petitioners are entitled only for Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, an amount of **Rs.10,000/- [25,000-15,000]** has to be deducted from the compensation awarded under the said head. 9. No amount is awarded under the head loss of estate. The petitioners are entitled for **Rs.15,000/-** towards compensation for loss of estate. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioners are awarded an additional compensation of **MACA NO. 1861 OF 2016 ..8..** **Rs.3,24,875/- [Rupees three lakhs twenty four thousand eight hundred and seventy five only] [2,59,875 + 60,000 + 15,000 – 10,000 ]** with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB/23/11/2021