High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-10-21Appeal disposed: Partially allowed; enhanced co...

BINDU SACHIN and others v. RAGEESH and THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. and THANKAM

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1499 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badhrudeen J.
Judgment Date: 2021-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The court recalculated compensation, fixing monthly income at Rs.8,000 with 25% addition, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of Rs.15,17,869, in addition to the sum already awarded (Rs.6,44,869). The insurer was directed to pay the enhanced amount at the same rate of interest as the Tribunal, with Rs.5,180/- extra court fee to be deposited. Remaining sums to be deposited by the appellants within two months as per the Tribunal’s proportions.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed: Partially allowed; enhanced compensation awarded to Rs.15,17,869 with direction to the insurer to pay along with existing award and to deposit excess court fee by appellants as stipulated; further compliance with tribunal’s procedural requirements mandated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BINDU SACHIN
ALEENA SACHIN (MINOR)
ABHIREKH SACHIN (MINOR)
ARSHA SACHIN (MINOR)

Respondents

Rageesh, S/o. Radhakrishnan
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Thankam, W/o. Solaman

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. AVM. Salahudin

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Lal K. Joseph, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala MACA concerns a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in relation to the death of Sachidananda Prabhu who succumbed on 14-04-2011 while riding a motorcycle on the Mavoor–Medical College Road. The legal heirs/petitioners—Bindu Sachin and her minor children Aleena, Abhirekh, and Arsha (represented by their mother, the first respondent)—challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs.6,44,869 against the owner-cum-rider and the insurer. The Tribunal admitted Exts. A1-A5 but did not rely on evidence to accept a higher monthly income, resulting in a lower dependency calculation. The appellants urged that the deceased’s monthly income should be Rs.8,000, with a 25% uplift for future prospects, citing Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq; they also pressed for enhanced heads of compensation (loss of consortium Rs.2,00,000 collectively for appellants 1-4 and respondent 3, funeral expenses Rs.15,000, loss of estate Rs.15,000) and an adjustment to pain and suffering, arguing for alignment with Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur decisions. The insurer supported the Rs.8,000 figure and 25% uplift, and did not seriously oppose the contention. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, recalculating compensation to Rs.15,17,869, directing payment by the insurer with interest, and ordering deposit of excess court fee, while maintaining procedural compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplied dependency calculation for loss of dependency (factoring future prospects) following Pranay Sethi and earlier cases; use of the multiplier approach in determining compensation; concept of loss of consortium as a compensable head; visibility of future prospects in determining income (age/occupation).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in denying due weight to the deceased’s actual earning capacity. Relying on Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, and National Insurance v. Pranay Sethi, they contended that the monthly income should be Rs.8,000 with a 25% uplift for future prospects, and that the loss of dependency should reflect a higher corpus (12 months x 14 years x 3/4 multiplier leading to Rs.12,60,000). They urged enhancement under loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 per claimant to Rs.2,00,000 in total for appellants 1-4 and respondent 3), funeral expenses (Rs.15,000) and loss of estate (Rs.15,000), and a revision of pain and suffering per recent authorities (disregarding Rs.25,000). They also requested the insurer to deposit the excess court fee and affirmed that the award should total Rs.15,17,869.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the proposed Rs.8,000 monthly income and 25% uplift, pointing to the cited judgments as justification. They did not vigorously contest the ratio for dependency enhancement and accepted the trend toward higher compensation, subject to the final calculation by the court.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify fixing the deceased’s monthly income around Rs.8,000 due to the ratio on evaluating earning capacity and future prospects.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited for upholding the uplift of income based on future prospects in the determination of compensation.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Guided the 25% uplift/addition to monthly income for future prospects.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram	(2018) ACJ 2782	Positive	Used to support enhanced loss of consortium/other heads of compensation.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur and others	(2020) 3 KHC 760	Partly Overruled / Limited	Applied to reduce the amount of pain and suffering awarded, following newer authority.

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 BINDU SACHIN and others v. RAGEESH and THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. and THANKAM 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 A. BADHARUDEEN** **THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943 MACA NO. 1499 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 588/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 BINDU SACHIN, W/O.(LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE. 2 ALEENA SACHIN (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS D.O.B. 20-3-97, D/O.(LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE. 3 ABHIREKH SACHIN(MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS D.O.B. 22-12-98, S/O.(LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE. 4 ARSHA SACHIN (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS D.O.B. 29-3-2001, D/O. (LATE) SACHIDANANDA PRABHU, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE. (PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN) BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 RAGEESH, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT RAGINI NIVAS, THARACHAPPALLITHAZHAM P.O., MARIKUNNU, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE-673012. 2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, SILVER PLAZA BUILDING, I.G. ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. ## **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 3 THANKAM, W/O. SOLAMAN, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL, CHANDANAM PARAMBATH, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE-673024. BY ADV. SRI.LAL.K.JOSEPH, SC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The legal heirs of Sachidananda Prabhu, who died in consequence of a motor accident occurred on 14.04.2011 at about 6:40 p.m while he was riding his motor cycle through the Mavoor–Medical College road, had filed petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/arraying the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle as respondents. The mother of the deceased, another dependent, got arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent. 2. The 3[rd] respondent was set ex-parte by the Tribunal. The 2[nd] respondent – Insurance Company filed a statement and admitted the policy but the amount of compensation was disputed being on higher side. 3. The Tribunal has not adduced any oral evidence. Acting on Exts.A1 to A5 series, **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** 4 documents marked on the side of the petitioner, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,44,869/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the monthly income claimed by the appellants to the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- being Centring worker, was not considered by the Tribunal, for want of evidence. 5. The learned counsel submitted that following the ratio in _**Ramachandrappa v.**_ _**Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ : **(2011) 13 SCC 236** and _**Syed**_ _**Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India**_ _**Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ **: (2014) 2 SCC 735,** Rs.8,000/- ought to be fixed as monthly income. Since the submission appears to be correct in view of the above decisions, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also not ## **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** 5 seriously opposed the said contention. Similarly, following the ratio in _**National**_ _**Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi :**_ **(2017)** **16 SCC 680** , 25% addition also required to be made to the monthly income. The age of the deceased is not a matter of dispute. Therefore, the submission also appears to be correct. 6. In view of the manner, loss of dependency income granted by the Tribunal requires modification. Thus, the same is recalculated as: 8000+25% = 10,000x12x14x¾ = 12,60,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants further that only Rs.10,000/- alone was granted under the head 'loss of consortium', though appellants 1 to 4 and respondent no.3 are entitled to get consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Following the ratio in _**Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram**_ **: 2018 ACJ 2782,** the ## **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** ## 6 submission appears to be correct. Therefore, the appellants and the 3[rd] respondent jointly entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- under this head. Reducing Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal, Rs.1,90,000/- more, is granted under this head. Coming to the other heads, Rs.5,000/- alone was granted under the head 'funeral expenses'. In fact the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. Similarly, Rs.10,000/- alone was granted under the head 'loss of estate' though the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under this head. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- more under this head also is granted by applying the ratio in _**Pranay Sethi's case** (supra)._ Coming to grant of 'pain and suffering', Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal, is not entitled by appellants following the ratio in _**United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur**_ **and others : 2020 (3) KHC 760** and, therefore, the said amount is **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** 7 reduced. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.8,73,000/- more as compensation in addition to the amount of Rs.6,44,869/- granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount of compensation would be 8,73,000 + 6,44,869 = 15,17,869/-. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is held that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,17,869/- as compensation out of which Rs.6,44,869/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of Rs.8,73,000/is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal payable by the 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company. 8. The appellants valued the claim at Rs.10,00,000/- and court fee payable is calculated as Rs.9,373/-. In view of grant of Rs.5,17,869/- in excess of the claim, the appellants are bound to deposit Rs.5,180/- as additional court fee. The Insurance Company is ## **M.A.C.A No.1499 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** directed to deposit Rs.5,180/- as additional court fee by a separate cheque in favour of M.A.C.T. The remaining amount shall be deposited in the name of appellants in the proportion fixed by the Tribunal within two months. On deposit, the appellants are entitled to release the same. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww