Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation granted w...

Ayesha and others vs Jomy Jose and others and National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2042 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date
2019-08-27
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is allowed; the claimants are awarded an additional Rs.3,48,040 as compensation, with interest at 7.5% on the additional amount. All other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The Tribunal may be directed to deposit and disburse the enhanced amount.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation granted with directions to deposit; other directions remain unchanged.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • AYSHA
  • HAJARA
  • RAMLATH
  • ASMABY (MINOR)
  • LATHEEF
  • MAJEED
  • SHYMA
  • UMAIBA
  • FASALU RAHMAN
  • BEEVI UMMA

Respondents

  • JOMY JOSE
  • R.PALANISWAMY
  • NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRI. SHEJI P. ABRAHAM

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. DEEPA GEORGE
  • • Sri. M.A. GEORGE
  • • Sri. GIBI.C.GEORGE
  • • Smt. LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala, in MACA No.2042 of 2010, hears an appeal by the claimants (Ayesha and others) challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ottapalam’s award of compensation to the dependants of Mohammed, who died in a motor accident on 28 April 2006. The Tribunal awarded Rs 3,89,600 in total, notably inadequately supporting the family’s dependency losses and related heads. The claim petition prayed for Rs 6,00,000. The court notes the deceased was described as a casual labourer, and there was no evidence of actual monthly income; relying on Ramachandrappa, the court considers Rs 4,000 per month as the multiplicand for 2006. In light of Pranay Sethi, with more than six dependants and the decedent aged 53, one-fifth of income is deducted for personal expenses, and 10% is added for future prospects; the appropriate multiplier is 11. Calculating the loss of dependency yields Rs 4,64,640, which is Rs 95,040 higher than the Tribunal’s award. The court also awards Rs 10,000 for pain and suffering; and, based on Pranay Sethi and Magma, awards Rs 35,000 for loss of consortium, Rs 12,500 for loss of estate, Rs 12,500 for funeral expenses (the Tribunal had allowed lesser sums). For love and affection, the court awards Rs 25,000 per claim for mother and children, totaling Rs 2,00,000. The result is an additional compensation of Rs 3,48,040 with interest at 7.5%, and the Tribunal’s directions remain intact.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Conventional damages for pain and suffering are applicable in death cases.
  • Loss of dependency calculated using the multiplier method with deductions for personal expenses when dependants exceed six and addition for future prospects.
  • Future prospects addition (10%) and the appropriate multiplier determined by age (here, 11) as per Pranay Sethi.
  • Pranay Sethi principles for dependency, future prospects and the structure of compensation; Magma for love and affection/extra heads.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal undervalued the quantum, particularly the deceased’s income and heads of compensation for loss of dependency, love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, and pain and suffering. They contended the monthly income should be higher, and that more weight should be given to future prospects and the number of dependants. They urged enhancement under all heads based on appellate precedents, especially Pranay Sethi and Magma.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s computation was largely in order and that the current factual matrix did not warrant a significant upward revision beyond the heads already awarded. They relied on established jurisprudence to keep the award within reasonable bounds and to resist inflated figures absent strong evidence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited[(2011) 13 SCC 236]PositiveUsed to justify calculating monthly income at Rs.4,000 for the deceased in 2006.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]PositiveApplied for future prospects, deduction of personal expenses, and the multiplier framework.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others(2018 ACJ 2782)PositiveCited for awarding compensation for love and affection to mother and children.

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 Ayesha and others vs Jomy Jose and others and National 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 5TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.2042 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP (MV) NO.860/2006 DATED 31-12-2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**AYSHA,**| |---|---| ||**W/O.LATE MOHAMMED @ MAMU,**| ||**IYYUMADAKKAL MANA HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O.,**| ||**PATTAMBI - 679 205.**| |**2**|**HAJARA,**| ||**D/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU, -DO-**| |**3**|**RAMLATH,**| ||**D/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU, -DO-**| |**4**|**ASMABY (MINOR),**| ||**D/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU, -DO-**| |**5**|**LATHEEF,**| ||**S/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU, -DO-**| ||**(MINOR).**| |**6**|**MAJEED,**| ||**S/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU, -DO-**| ||**(MINOR).**| |**7**|**SHYMA,**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU,**| ||**RESIDING AT PARATHUR VILLAGE, CHAMBANANGAD.**| |**8**|**UMAIBA,**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU,**| ||**IYUMADAKKAL MANA VEEDU, PALLIPURAM,**| ||**PATTAMBI (NOW RESIDING AT PARUTHUR VILLAGE,**| ||**CHAMBANANGAD).**| |**9**|**FASALU RAHMAN,**| ||**AGED 21 YEARS,**| M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 2 ## **D/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMU.** **10 BEEVI UMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, IYUMADAKKAL MANA VEEDU,, PALLIPURAM, PATTAMBI, (NOW RESIDING AT PARUTHUR VILLAGE, CHAMBANANGAD, PATTAMBI).** **BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 JOMY JOSE, S/O JOSE, CHEERAN HOUSE, PULLANIKKAD, WADAKKANCHERRY R.S. (PO), THRISSUR.** - **2 R.PALANISWAMY, S/O.R.RAMASWAMY, THAIKKADAN HOUSE, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O., THRISSUR. 680 001.** - **3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SMARAK BUILDING, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001, (POLICY NO.570700/31/05/5700005419, VALID FROM 5.12.2005 TO 4/12/2006).** **R1, R3 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 3 ## **M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010** ## **---------------------------------------------** ## **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 Mohammed aged 53 years died in a motor accident took place on 28.04.2006. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a casual labourer. His mother, wife and eight children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.3,89,600/- 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 parties. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, in the 4 ## M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.3,500/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea as regards the income of the deceased, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company** **Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of a similarly placed person at Rs.4,500/- in the context of the accident took place in the year 2004, I am of the view that the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case could have been certainly reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/-, in the context of the accident took place in 2006. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 5 KLT 662 (SC)], as the dependants of the deceased were more than six in number, one fifth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged above 50 and below 60, 10% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 53, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '11'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.4,64,640/(Rs.4000x12x4/5x110/100x11). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.3,69,600/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.95,040/-. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering. As no amount has been granted by the Tribunal, I deem it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 6 to grant to the claimants a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation under that head. 7. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2006, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.35,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards compensation for loss of consortium. Similarly, in the light of the said decision, the Tribunal should have granted to the claimants Rs.12,500/towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.12,500/towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.17,000/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.43,000/- under those heads. 8. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and** M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 7 **others** (2018 ACJ 2782) and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2006, I am of the view that the mother and children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each. As the Tribunal has not granted any compensation to the claimants under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/under that head. 9. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 10. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,48,040/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.3,48,040/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the M.A.C.A No.2042 of 2010 8 Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** YKB