High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-07-09Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and other...

Augustine and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.483 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-07-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; claimant entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,58,400 with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount; all interlocutory applications closed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and other heads adjusted as described; interest on enhanced amount awarded; interlocutory applications closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Augustine
Mary
Shelji
Shinoj
Sherjin

Respondents

Muhammed Rafi
V. Elamaran
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. ANEY PAUL
• Adv. Sri. PHILIP J. VETTIKATTU

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri George Cherian (Sr.)
• Adv. SMT. K.S. Santhi
• Adv. SMT. Latha Susan Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in MACA No. 483 of 2014, heard an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, award dated 31-08-2013 in OP(MV) No.459/2007 for Shaise, aged 25, who died in a motor accident on 14.01.2007. The claim petition sought Rs.5,00,000 as compensation for the death of Shaise; the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,50,000. The appellants contend the compensation is inadequately assessed. Ext. A4 shows the deceased earning Rs.15,000 per month, which the Tribunal reduced to Rs.6,000 for the purpose of dependency calculation. The appellants rely on Supreme Court precedents, notably Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, to argue for a higher multiplier aligned with the deceased’s age and to add future prospects to the multiplicand. The court endorses these doctrines, applying the age-based multiplier and future prospects to recompute the dependency loss (Rs.11,42,400 as claimed), and to enhance compensation for loss of estate and love/affection, following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and other authorities. The judge also notes that the Tribunal’s awards for pain and suffering (Rs.15,000) and funeral expenses (Rs.20,000) were excessive and adjusts them downward, resulting in a net enhanced compensation of Rs.8,58,400 and interest at 7.5% on the additional amount. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the claimant’s total enhanced relief is granted.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects doctrine (as per Pranay Sethi)
Multiplier principle for calculating compensation
Loss of dependency and related heads (loss of estate, love and affection)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that the deceased, a technician, earned Rs.15,000 per month (as per Ext. A4) and that the Tribunal erred in applying a reduced monthly income of Rs.6,000 for dependency calculations. They contend that, in 2007, the Court should apply a higher income (Rs.8,000) and the correct age-appropriate multiplier, taking into account future prospects in line with Supreme Court rulings (Royal Sundaram and Pranay Sethi). They further argue for enhanced compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate (Rs.12,500) and loss of love and affection (Rs.25,000 per dependent, totaling Rs.125,000 for five claimants). They submit that the Tribunal’s total extra compensation should be Rs.8,70,900 and that, after adjusting for excess awards for pain and suffering and funeral expenses, the net additional compensation should be Rs.8,58,400, with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer’s counsel participated in the hearing; while the document does not spell out detailed submissions, the respondents’ position was that the Tribunal’s quantum, consistent with the evidence and standard practice, should stand. The court, however, relies on established precedents to re-calculate the compensation, indicating that the insurer’s stance did not outweigh the need to apply the newer legal principles for calculating dependency, future prospects, and heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud and others	2019(2) KHC 915 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify applying the multiplier with reference to age and including future prospects in the calculation of compensation.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support addition of future prospects to the multiplicand per Supreme Court guidance.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others	2018 ACJ 2782	Positive	Cited to support higher awards for head of compensation such as love and affection given the date of accident.

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 Augustine and others v. Oriental Insurance 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.483 of 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.459/2007 of the MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA DATED 31-08-2013** ## **- APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 AUGUSTINE, S/O.SEBASTINE, RESIDING AT NARITHOOKKIL HOUSE,PULICKATHOTTI KARA,VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK.** - **2 MARY W/O.AUGUSTINE,RESIDING AT NARITHOOKKIL HOUSE,PULICKATHOTTI KARA,VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK.** **3 SHELJI, W/O.JILS,RESIDING AT THURACKAL HOUSE,MUTHALAKODAM KARA,THODUPIZHA VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK.** - **4 SHINOJ** **S/O.AUGUSTINE,RESIDING AT NARITHOOKKIL HOUSE,PULICKATHOTTI KARA,VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK.** - **5 SHERJIN** - **S/O.AUGUSTINE,RESIDING AT NARITHOOKKIL HOUSE,PULICKATHOTTI KARA,VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTIKATTU** M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 2 ## **- RESPONDENTS:** **1 MUHAMMED RAFI, S/O.K.ABDUL RASHEED RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2/238,ABHIRAMI STREET,PIDAMANERY,DHARMAPURI.P.O,TAMILNADU, PIN-625520.(DELETED)*** **2 V.ELAMARAN S/O.VENKITACHELAM,PAPPIREDDYPPATTY,HARUR TALUK,DHARMAPURI DISTRICT,TAMILNADU, PIN-625520.(DELETED)*** *** RESPONDENT NO'S 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 2/11/2017 IN IANO.4027/17 IN MACA 483/14** - **3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,DHARMAPURI,PIN-625520.** **BY ADVS. R3 BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. One Shaise aged 25 years died in a motor accident took place on 14.01.2007. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a Technician, working in a textile company. His parents and siblings were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed by way of compensation in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.4,50,000/ by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the insurer in the proceedings. 4. The pleading in the claim petition as regards M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 4 the income of the deceased was that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the said claim, the claimants have produced Ext.A4 salary certificate issued by the employer. Ext.A4 certifies that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Ext.A4 was proved by examining the partner of the firm, where the deceased was working. Insofar as the deceased was working in a private firm, it cannot be said that he would continue to get the same income throughout his career. It appears that it is on account of the said reason, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of dependency. Having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2007 and the fact that the deceased was a Technician, I am of the view that a sum of Rs.8,000/- should have been taken by the Tribunal towards the monthly income of the deceased. Further, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Royal Sundaram Alliance** M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 5 ## **Insurance Company Ltd. (M/s) v. Mandala Yadagari Goud** **and others** [2019(2) KHC 915 (SC)], the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased. Further in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurnace Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], the Tribunal should have also added to the multiplicand a portion of the income towards future prospects. If that be so, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.11,42,400/-(Rs.8,000x 140/100x12x17x1/2) by way of compensation for loss of dependency alone. Only a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal under that head. In other words, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,18,400/-under that head. Likewise, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** and having regard to the fact that the accident was one took place in the year 2007, the Tribunal could have granted at least a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards compensation for M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 6 loss of estate. As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- under that head, the claimants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.2,500/- under that head. Towards compensation for loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the parents and three siblings of the deceased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and others** (2018 ACJ 2782) and having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2007, according to me, the Tribunal could have granted compensation under that head at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each. If that be so, the claimants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.50,000/- under that head. Thus, the total additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.8,70,900/-. 5. It is seen that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 7 According to me, a sum of Rs.10,000/- should have been the ideal just compensation under that head. In other words, Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal under that head is in excess. Similarly, towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2007, Rs.12,500/- should have been the ideal compensation under that head as well. In other words, Rs.7,500/- granted under that head is also in excess. Thus, the total excess compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants would come to Rs.12,500/-. If the said excess payment is adjusted against the additional compensation to which the claimants are found entitled, the net additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.8,58,400/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed, granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.8,58,400/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled M.A.C.A No.483 of 2014 8 to interest for the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5%. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** DK