High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-25Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation award...

Chinnu and others v. Raveendran Nair and National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2352 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2024-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. The 2nd respondent insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,84,500 in the bank account of the appellants in equal shares with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting liabilities, if any, of the appellants towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund, in terms of Circular No.3 of 2019 and OM dated 07-11-2019.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months; costs ruled as none.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

CHINNU
JAIN BABY
IGNATIOUS BABY MINOR

Respondents

RAVEENDRAN NAIR
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C.A. Navas
• Sri. T.K. Sasikumar
• Smt. C.S. Simi

Counsels for Respondents

• null

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from MACA No. 2352 of 2013 arising out of OP(MV) No. 194 of 2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Baby, challenge the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 4,66,293 with 8% interest on the death suffered in a road traffic accident on 24.12.2006 at Vappa...lssery, Aluva, caused by a rashly driven car (KL-7-BA-2270) driven by the 1st respondent. They seek enhanced compensation on several heads, arguing the deceased, aged 42, was a self‑employed aluminum fabricator earning about Rs. 10,000 per month. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., they contend the income should be fixed on a notional basis (Rs. 5,500) with a 25% bonus for self‑employment, leading to Rs. 6,875/month; after 1/3 deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 7,69,944. They claim Rs. 15,000 funeral expenses (per Pranay Sethi), Rs. 1,32,000 for loss of consortium/love and affection after adjustments, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, and deduction of Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering as per a later principle. The insurer counters, arguing no reliable income proof and that the Tribunal’s award was fair; the High Court re‑weighs the evidence and enhances the compensation and directs deposit of the enhanced amount.

Provisions of Law Cited

null

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

null

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 3,500 and sought enhancement by applying the Ramachandrappa approach: notional income around Rs. 5,500 with a 25% uplift for self‑employment, giving Rs. 6,875 monthly. After allowing for a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 14 (age 42), loss of dependency is recalculated as Rs. 7,69,944. They point out that Rs. 3,91,944 was awarded and seek the balance Rs. 3,78,000 as enhanced compensation. They also claim Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses (per Pranay Sethi), Rs. 1,32,000 for loss of consortium/love and affection after suitable up‑scaling, Rs. 12,500 for loss of estate, and the deduction of Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering should be made from the enhanced amount in light of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur Alia Satwinder Kaur.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer/responder counters that there is no documentary proof of the deceased’s income and that the Tribunal’s assessment was reasonable; they note the policy is admitted and contest the quantum of enhancement on several heads. They rely on established precedents to justify the Tribunal’s approach and oppose sweeping increases, arguing against extrapolations without adequate proof. They also defend the existing award on loss of dependency and other heads, urging the Court to maintain the Tribunal’s calculations and the awarded quantities unless clearly erroneous.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[AIR 2011 SC 2951]	Positive	Used to fix notional income for self-employed deceased; applied to compute loss of dependency.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	[(2017) 16 SCC 680]	Positive	Cited for standards on enhanced compensation under heads like funeral expenses and loss of estate as per Pranay Sethi guidelines.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur Alia Satwinder Kaur and Another	[(2021) 11 SCC 780]	Positive	Applied to deduct Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering from enhanced compensation.

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 Chinnu and others v. Raveendran Nair 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`_ ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## _`MACA NO. 2352 OF 2013`_ ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.194 OF 2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## _`APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:`_ ``` 1CHINNU AGED 44 YEARS W/O.BASBY, AREECKAL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O., NEDUMBASSERRY VILLGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2JAIN BABY AGED 21 YEARS D/O.BABY, AREECKAL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O., NEDUMBASSERRY VILLGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3IGNATIOUS BABY MINOR AGED 12 YEARS AREECKAL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O., NEDUMBASSERRY VILLGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT GUARDIAN CHINNU, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.BABY, AREECKAL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O., NEDUMBASSERRY VILLGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR SMT.C.S.SIMI ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1RAVEENDRAN NAIR S/O.T.P.KUNCHY NAIR, 145, VATHAYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUNCHATTUKARA, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIV. NO.10, FLAT NO.101-106, N-1, BMC HOUSE, CONNOAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, PIN 110 001. ``` ## _`OTHER PRESENT:`_ ``` SMT.DEEPA GEORGE ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` ``` ..2.. ``` ## **SOPHY THOMAS, J.** ## **=====================** ## M.A.C.A. No. 2352 of 2013 ## **========================** ## _**J U D G M E N T**_ ## **Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2024** This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in OP(MV) No. 194 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. 2. The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Baby, and they are impugning the award of the Tribunal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 3. Sri. Baby met with a road traffic accident on 24.12.2006 at 02.00 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through National Highway at Vappalsserry, Aluva. KL-7-BA-2270 car driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle, and he was thrown down, and sustained fatal ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** injuries. Though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. He was aged 42 years, and was doing aluminum fabrication works, earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. His wife and children approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, but, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,66,293/- with 8% interest per annum. 4. The 1[st] respondent was the owner cum driver of the offending car, and the 2[nd] respondent was its insurer during the relevant period. Since the 2[nd] respondent insurer entered appearance and admitted the policy, notice to the 1[st] respondent was dispensed with. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 6. The main challenge against the award is regarding the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, as the monthly income of the deceased was notionally fixed by the ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Tribunal @ Rs.3,500/-. According to the appellants, deceased Baby was doing aluminium fabrication works, earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. But no documents were produced to prove his job or income. So, going by the decision _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]**_ , his monthly income can be taken as Rs.5,500/-, as the accident was in the year 2006. Since he was a self employed man aged below 50, 25% addition also can be taken into account. So, his monthly income can be calculated as Rs.6,875/- (5,500+25%). He was having his wife and two children as his dependents. So, 1/3[rd] has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So his monthly income can be taken as Rs.4,583/- (6,875-1/3[rd] ) as the income for assessing compensation for loss of dependency. Since he was aged 42, the multiplier applicable is 14. So the loss of dependency can be recalculated as Rs.7,69,944/- (4,583x12x14). ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** They were already given Rs.3,91,944/- towards loss of dependency as per the impugned award. So, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.3,78,000/- (7,69,944 - 3,91,944) as enhanced compensation towards loss of dependency. 7. Towards funeral expenses, the appellants were given only Rs.3,000/-. Going by the decision _**National Insurance Company**_ _**Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680],**_ they were eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So they are entitled to get the balance Rs.12,000/- as enhanced compensation under that head. 8. Towards loss of consortium, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each, taking into account 10% increase also for the lapse of time. So they are eligible to get total amount of Rs.1,32,000/-. After deducting Rs.20,000/- already paid, they will get the balance amount of Rs.1,12,000/- towards loss of consortium. 9. Towards loss of love and affection, they were given ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Rs.25,000/-. Since they are awarded Rs.44,000/- each under the head loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection, will become a duplication, and so, that Rs.25,000/- is also liable to deducted. So after deducting Rs.25,000/-, the appellants are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.87,000/- towards loss of consortium. 10. Towards loss of estate, the appellants were awarded only Rs.2,500/- by the Tribunal. Going by the decision **Pranay Sethi** cited supra, they are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So they will get the balance Rs.12,500/- as enhanced compensation towards loss of estate. 11. Learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent pointed out that, though Sri. Baby died on the date of accident itself, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Going by the decision _**United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur Alia Satwinder Kaur and Another [(2021) 11**_ ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` ``` ..7.. ``` _**SCC 780]** ,_ that amount is liable to be deducted. So Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is deducted from the enhanced compensation. ## 12. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is ## given in the table below:- |_`SL. No`_|_`Head of`_ _`claim`_|_`Amount`_ _`awarded by`_ _`the`_ _`Tribunal`_|_`Amount`_ _`awarded in`_ _`appeal`_|_`Amounts`_ _`deducted`_ _`in appeal`_|_`Difference`_ _`to be`_ _`drawn as`_ _`enhanced`_ _`compensati`_ _`on`_| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |_`1`_|_`Funeral`_ _`expense`_|_`3,000/-`_|_`15,000/-`_||_`12,000/-`_| |_`4`_|_`Loss of`_ _`dependency`_|_`3,91,944/-`_|_`7,69,944`_||_`3,78,000/-`_| |_`5`_|_`Pain and`_ _`suffering`_|_`5,000/-`_||_`5000/-`_|| |_`6`_|_`Loss of`_ _`consortium`_ _`/`_ _`Love and`_ _`affection`_|_`20,000/-`_ _`25,000/-`_|_`1,32,000/-`_||_`87,000/-`_| |_`9`_|_`Loss of`_ _`estate`_|_`2,500/-`_|_`15,000/-`_||_`12,500/-`_| |_`Total`_||_`4,66,293`_||_`5,000`_|_`4,89,500/-`_| ## 13. So the appellants are entitled to get Rs.4,84,500/- in total [(12,000 + 3,78,000 + 87,000 + 12,500) - 5000] as enhanced compensation with 8% interest. ``` MACA. No. 2352 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 14. The 2[nd] respondent Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,84,500 /- in the bank account of the appellants in equal share with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **SOPHY THOMAS** ## **JUDGE** RMV ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ```