Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePartly allowed

Anil Kumar and Laila v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 236 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dev(an) Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2023-03-22
Court Decision / Holding
Partly allowed. The High Court enhanced the Loss of Dependency by fixing notional income at Rs. 9,500 per month with 40% future prospects, and after a 50% deduction for personal expenses, resulting in a total of Rs. 14,36,400 for loss of dependency. The Rs. 10,000 awarded for pain and suffering was deleted. All other heads of compensation remained unchanged. The claimant is entitled to interest at 8% from the date of filing until realization, with 214 days of delay excluded. The Insurance Company must deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal within two months of receipt of this judgment, and costs on the enhanced amount are to be paid as directed by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition
Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Anil Kumar
  • Laila

Respondents

  • Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Pratheesh.P
  • • Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P.A. Reziya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award under OPMV 826/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, seeking compensation for the death of late Anand, who was involved in a scooter accident on 28.10.2014. The appellants, the parents of the deceased, contended that the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 12,76,000 of the claimed Rs. 15,85,000, and erred by fixing the deceased’s notional income at Rs. 4,500 per month despite evidence that he earned Rs. 15,000 monthly as an electrician. At 19 years of age, they argued that future prospects at 40% ought to be added, which would substantially increase dependency compensation. The insurer argued that the deceased was a student with no income. The High Court examined the evidence, applying the Ramachandrappa standard to determine notional income (Rs. 9,500 per month) for 2014 and, with 40% future prospects and a 50% deduction for personal expenses, computed a higher loss of dependency. The court also relied on Satinder Kaur to strike down the Tribunal’s Rs. 10,000 award for pain and suffering. The result is a partial relief for the appellants: enhancement of dependency compensation to Rs. 14,36,400, deletion of pain and suffering, and a direction to pay enhanced amounts with 8% interest from filing, excluding 214 days of delay, with deposit within two months. The decision preserves other heads of compensation.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Notional income standard for unascertainable income (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011)
  • 40% future prospects (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662)
  • 50% deduction for personal expenses in calculating dependency (per Pranay Sethi framework)
  • Pain and suffering awards constrained by Satinder Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 11 SCC 780)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500 per month, despite evidence of earnings of Rs. 15,000 per month as an electrician. Being only 19 at the time of the accident, the deceased was entitled to 40% future prospects, which, when added, would substantially increase the dependency loss. The appellants urged enhancement of compensation under the head Loss of Dependency by applying the higher income, with the 40% addition and after deducting personal expenses by one-half. They challenged the Tribunal’s Rs. 10,000 award for pain and suffering as impermissible in light of Satinder Kaur, seeking its deletion. The appellants relied on Ramachandrappa for determining notional income and on Pranay Sethi for future prospects. They requested interest at 8% and costs on the enhanced amounts.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contended that the deceased, aged 19, was a student with no income, so there was no earnings basis for dependency and that the Tribunal could not have awarded Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering in view of Satinder Kaur. It urged that the notional income as per the applicable standard was appropriate and that the evidence of Rs. 15,000 per month did not transform the deceased into a primary earner. It argued for maintaining the Tribunal’s otherwise modest computation and caution against excessive enhancement. Overall, the respondents supported upholding the Tribunal’s order except for the pain and suffering head which they argued should be constrained by precedent.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCited to justify notional income standard for unascertainable income; applied to fix Rs. 9,500/month.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2017 (4) KLT 662PositiveCited for the 40% future prospects principle in calculating dependency.
Satinder Kaur v United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(2021) 11 SCC 780PositiveUsed to proscribe the Rs. 10,000 pain and suffering award; led to its deletion.

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 Anil Kumar and Laila v. Divisional Manager, 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 826/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM ``` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1ANILKUMAR AGED 59 YEARS S/O.SOMAN, USHA MANDIRAM, THEKKUMKARA, PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691304 2LAILA AGED 57 YEARS D/O.VIMALA, USHA MANDIRAM, THEKKUMKARA, PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691304 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## `RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:` ``` THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 3RD PARTY HUB, ULLOOR MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011 ``` ``` BY ADV P.A.REZIYA ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The parents of late Anand are the appellants before this Court. Late Anand was involved in a motor accident on 28.10.2014 - when the scooter on which he was riding pillion was hit by the offending vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent manner - thus causing him grievous injuries, to which he succumbed soon thereafter. ``` ``` 2.The appellants filed O.P(MV)No.826/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (“Tribunal” for short), seeking compensation of an amount Rs.15,85,000/-, but ``` ``` which has been allowed only to an extent of Rs.12,76,000/-.Theythusassailthe ``` ``` compensation as being inadequate. ``` ``` 3.Smt.Gopika.T.G. - learned counsel ``` ``` appearing for the appellant, argued that the ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` sole reason why the compensation has been fixed low in favour of the appellants is because the learned Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the deceased to be a mere Rs.4,500/- per month, even though there is evidence to show that he was earning Rs.15,000/- every month, as ``` ``` an electrician. She argued that, since the ``` ``` deceased was only 19 years in age at the time of accident, future prospects, at the rate of 40%, has been correctly awarded by the learned Tribunal; and therefore, that if the income is reckoned as being Rs.15,000/- per month as ``` ``` claimed, the compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency” would have to be enhanced substantially. She thus prayed that this appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 4.Smt.P.A.Rezia – learned Standing Counsel ``` ``` for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` submitted that, even though the claimants state in their averments that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as an electrician, the fact remains that he was only 19 years in age and was, in fact, a student, without any income at all. She concluded saying that in any event, the learned Tribunal could not have granted Rs.10,000/- towards “Pain and Suffering”, as this is proscribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur[(2021) 11 SCC 780]. ``` ``` 5.I have examined the afore rival ``` ``` contentions of the parties and have tested them on the worth of the evidence on record – copies of which have been made available to this Court by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, with the express consent that they can ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` be acted upon, without dispute. ``` ``` 6.On the question of notional income of ``` ``` the appellants, I find in favour which Smt.Gopika.T.G. because, even assuming that he ``` ``` is not an electrician and that his avocation has ``` ``` not been properly proved,Ramachandrappa v. ``` ``` Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ``` ``` Company Limited.[(2011) 13 SCC 236] ``` ``` standardises the notional income to be taken ``` ``` in the case of a person without an ``` ``` ascertainable income, or working as a ``` ``` “Coolie”, in the year, 2014 – being the year ``` ``` of the accident - to be Rs.9,500/-. I fail to ``` ``` understand why the learned Tribunal did not reckon the said figure; to which, certainly, ``` ``` 40% future prospects is to be added, going by ``` ``` National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` [2017 (4) KLT 662]. ``` ``` 7.As regards the contention of Smt.Rezia, ``` ``` that no amount could have been granted by the Tribunal under the head “Pain and Suffering”, I ``` ``` find favour with her because Satinder Kaur ``` ``` (supra) declares the law so. ``` ``` 8.Ido not seeany mistake having been committed by the learned Tribunal under any of other heads. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, this appeal ``` ``` is partly allowed in the following manner: ``` ``` a)The compensation under the head “Loss ofDependency”isenhancedto ``` ``` Rs.14,36,400/-,from Rs.11,34,000/-, reckoning ``` ``` the notional income of the deceased to be ``` ``` Rs.9,500/-, with 40% future prospects added to it and one-half deducted towards his personal ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` expenses. ``` ``` b)The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head “Pain and Suffering” is deleted. ``` ``` In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and its findings will remain unaltered. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellant will be entitled to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the respondent – Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the claim until it is realised. ``` ``` The appellants will also be entitled to ``` ``` proportionate costs on the enhanced amounts as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` However, while calculating the interest on the amounts enhanced as afore, the period of ``` ``` MACA NO. 236 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` 214 days - being the delay caused by the appellants in filing this appeal - shall stand excluded. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` SAS