Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchThis appeal is thus allowed in part.

Celine Chandy & Others v. Mani M & Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.27 of 2006 (A)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • J. B. Koshy
  • K. P. Balachandran
Judgment Date
2008-08-13
Court Decision / Holding
This appeal is thus allowed in part. The court reduces the multiplier to 10 and adopts an annual income of Rs. 2,40,000 for calculation, resulting in enhanced loss of dependency. An additional amount of Rs. 3,47,000 (rounded from Rs. 3,47,215) is awarded with interest at 7% from the date of application till deposit. The third respondent/Insurance Company is to deposit the enhanced amount with 7% interest, and upon deposit, the appellants may withdraw the amount in equal shares.
Final Disposition
This appeal is thus allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Celine Chandy
  • Jacob Chandy
  • Thomas Chandy

Respondents

  • Mani M.
  • N. Palaniswamy
  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mathew John (K)
  • • Sujesh Menon V.B.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. R. Ramachandra Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 23 December 2000, the husband of the first appellant died in a motor vehicle accident, leaving a widow and two children who claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, awarded a total sum of Rs 12,80,285, with Rs 12,52,785 allocated for loss of dependency. The appellants challenge the quantum, arguing that the deceased was a qualified doctor (Anesthetist with a Post Graduate Diploma in Anesthesia) whose earnings were rising and that, in view of his age (54 at death) and life expectancy, a higher multiplier should be used beyond the Second Schedule guidelines. The appellants rely on Exts. A7–A9 to show increasing income and contend that the income figure used by the Tribunal understates actual earnings; they advocate Rs 2,40,000 per year for calculation and a ten-year (multiplier) approach, after deducting one-third for personal expenses, yielding a higher dependency loss. They also contend that the widow’s loss of consortium and other heads deserve more, and seek 7% interest on any enhanced amount. The respondents urged adherence to the Tribunal’s assessment, arguing the Second Schedule is a guideline and the income trend does not warrant drastic enhancement. The High Court, after re-assessing multiplier and income, partially allows the appeal, and directs the insurer to deposit enhanced compensation with interest for distribution among the appellants.

Provisions of Law Cited

Second Schedule (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the deceased—aged 54 at the time of death and a practicing doctor with a Post Graduate Diploma in Anesthesia—could command a higher income trajectory than reflected in the Tribunal’s order. They urge applying the multiplier in accordance with life expectancy principles, arguing that the Second Schedule is only a guideline and a higher multiplier is warranted given the doctor’s professional earnings potential. They rely on Exts. A7–A9 to show rising income and press for using Rs 2,40,000 as annual income for calculation, with a ten-year multiplier after a one-third deduction for personal expenses, which would result in a higher loss of dependency than awarded. They also contend for greater compensation on non-dependency heads (e.g., loss of consortium) and seek 7% interest on the enhanced amount. The added amount sought is Rs 3,47,000 (rounded from Rs 3,47,215) payable with interest to be deposited by the insurer for distribution to the claimants.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urge adherence to the Tribunal’s quantum, arguing that the Second Schedule provides guidelines rather than rigid rules and that the existing award was just and fair. They contend there is insufficient basis to overhaul the income assessment or to increase the multiplier beyond what the court finds appropriate, and that the compensation awarded for non-dependency heads does not require enhancement. They resist substantial modifications to the financial calculations and maintain that the original award should stand, except to the extent of the court’s limited adjustments approved for the enhanced amount and its deposit with interest.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & ors.JT 2002 (5) SC 74PositiveCited to justify reducing multiplier from 11 to 10 in calculating compensation, aligning with guidelines in Patricia Mahajan.

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 Celine Chandy & Others v. Mani M & Others 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 J.B.KOSHY** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930** **MACA.No.27 of 2006 (A)** **---------------------------OP(MV).580/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA** **....................** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **---------------------------------** **1. CELINE CHANDY, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY.** ## **2. JACOB CHANDY, DO. DO.** ## **3. THOMAS CHANDY, DO. DO.** **BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------------------** **1. MANI.M., DIXC, NEAR POST OFFICE, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE-45, TAMIL NADU.** ## **2. N.PALANISWAMY, KOLLAMCODE, PALAKKAD.** **3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., COIMBATORE.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of August, 2008 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**J. B. Koshy, J**_ The husband of the first appellant sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 23/12/2000. His wife and two children claimed a compensation amounting to Rs.50 lakhs contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent/ driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent/Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,80,285/inclusive of all amounts. For loss of dependency, the amount awarded was Rs.12,52,785/-. The only dispute is regarding quantum of M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -2- compensation and hence, we are only considering the question of quantum of compensation. The date of birth of the deceased was 05/07/1946. The accident occurred while the deceased was aged 54. The Tribunal has taken 11 as the multiplier taking guidelines from the Second Schedule. It is contended that a Doctor can practice even after the age of 70 and considering the life expectancy, higher multiplier should be taken. At the time of accident, he has already completed the age of 54 years. The Second Schedule can be considered only as a guideline and a comparatively lower multiplier also can be taken if the multiplicand is on the higher -3- M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that for calculating the compensation only 10 need be taken as the multiplier (see _United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & ors._ (JT 2002 (5) SC 74). The deceased was a Doctor by profession. He was an Anesthetist having Post Graduate Diploma in Anesthesia. He was working in various hospitals such as Vimala Hospital, Devamatha Hospital, P.M.M. Hospital, K.G.Hospital, St.Joseph Hospital, M.A.G.J Hospital and Maria Hospital. He was also a Chief Medical Officer in Alphonsa Hospital. According to the claimant, he was getting a monthly income of Rs.38,195/-. To prove the M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -4- income, claimants produced Exts.A7 to A9 Income Tax returns. Ext.A7 is the return of Income Tax for the period 1999 - 2000 which shows that his annual income was Rs.2,20,770/-. During the assessment year 2000-01, i.e. the year of death, the gross annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,45,781/-. It is the contention of the claimants that his income was increasing every year. But Tribunal has taken annual income as Rs.2,33,275/- taking the average of Exts.A7 and A8. Thereafter, the Tribunal was of the opinion that Rs.2,33,275/- per annum can be taken only for five years as after the age of 60 there is likelihood of decrease in income M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -5- and thus, for the balance six years annual income at the rate of Rs.1,18,800/- as mentioned as salary in Ext.A8 income tax return was taken. Thus, after deducting 1/3, amount calculated for the first five years is Rs.7,77,585/- and for the last six years is Rs.4,75,200/-. Thus, the total compensation for loss of dependency granted by the Tribunal is Rs.12,52,785/-. 2. It is the contention of the claimants that in view of gaining of experience income will only increase. It is also pointed out that Exts.A7 to A9 income tax returns show that income was only increasing. While considering the decrease in the value of M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -6- money, we are of the view that as we have already reduced the multiplier from 11 to 10 and even though Rs.2,33,275/- was calculated as the annual income by the Tribunal, for the purpose of calculation we take Rs.2,40,000/as annual income of the deceased. We note that in the previous year of death, the gross total income of the deceased as per Ext.A8 income tax return is Rs.2,45,781/-. But we are not taking this amount as annual income of the deceased for calculating compensation. Therefore, after deducting 1/3, annual loss of dependency to the family will be Rs.1,60,000/-. When 10 is taken as the multiplier, it will come to Rs.16 lakhs. The Tribunal has awarded M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -7- an amount of Rs.12,52,785/- for loss of dependency. So, the balance amount payable for loss of dependency will be Rs.3,47,215/-. 3. It is submitted that at the time of death, the widow was only 47 years and for loss of consortium only Rs.10,000/- was granted and compensation granted on other heads are very meagre. But considering the total compensation granted, we are of the view that just and reasonable compensation was awarded by the Tribunal and no enhancement is necessary on the same. Considering the present rate of interest, we are of the view that at least 7% interest should be granted for the additional amount now being awarded. The M. A. C. A. No.27 of 2006 -8- additional amount of Rs.3,47,215/- (rounded to Rs.3,47,000/-) shall be deposited by the third respondent/Insurance Company with 7% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, all the three appellants are allowed to withdraw the amount in equal proportions. 4. This appeal is thus allowed in part. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-