High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-15Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Deeepa (on behalf of her minor children Amal and Amrutha) v. Abdurahman, Suresh Babu and The New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 212 OF 2014

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-07-15
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The court recalculates compensation: Loss of dependency Rs. 10,08,000; Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500; Loss of consortium Rs. 1,32,000; Loss of estate Rs. 16,500; Pain and suffering (Rs. 10,000) set aside. Total enhanced amount Rs. 11,73,000. The insurer shall pay interest on the Tribunal-awarded amounts as per the award and on the enhanced amounts at 8% from the date of petition, with set-off for any amounts already paid. The claimant must provide bank details within one month for NEF/RTGS transfer; if not provided, no interest will accrue on the enhanced amount after the specified period. The appellant is not entitled to interest for the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal as per the court’s order dated 11.01.2022. Bench: Single Judge (Basant Balaji, J.).
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; interest on enhanced amounts at 8% from date of petition; set-off for amounts already paid; bank details to be provided for NEF/RTGS transfer; no interest on enhanced amount after stipulated period; no interest for 137-day delay in filing appeal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deeepa (wife of the deceased)
Amal (minor, son)
Amrutha (minor, daughter, represented by Guardian/Mother)

Respondents

Abdurahman, S/o Kunhamma
Suresh Babu, S/o Parukutty
The New India Assurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. C. Suresh Menon
• Sri. A. R. Nimod

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Lal K Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from MACA No. 212 of 2014 arising from a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased Anilan, aged 38, died in a road accident on 12.12.2007 when his motorcycle KL-8/S-1598 was struck by a lorry on the Kuttippuram–Kunnamkulam highway near Parempadam. The appellants are his wife and two minor children, represented by the first appellant. The MACT, Thrissur, awarded Rs. 5,08,000 in total compensation relying on Exts. A1–A9, which the appellants challenged as inadequately calculated. The court examines notional income, future prospects, and the multiplier, with reliance on leading precedents: Ramachandrappa (notional income Rs. 6,000 in 2007), Pranay Sethi (40% future prospects for self-employed under 40 and up to 15-year multiplier; funeral expenses cap; and 10% uplift), Magma General Insurance (loss of consortium for wife and children), and United India Insurance (pain and suffering in death cases). The court held that the deceased’s notional income should be Rs. 6,000/month, added 40% future prospects, applied a multiplier of 15, and deducted one-third for personal expenses. It enhanced compensation across heads, disallowing certain awards (e.g., pain and suffering) per cited precedents, culminating in a total enhanced award of Rs. 11,73,000 with detailed heads. The insurer is ordered to pay the enhanced amount with interest, subject to conditions including no interest for a delay in filing the appeal and required set-off for any amounts already paid.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income rule (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, 2011 (13) SCC 236)
40% future prospects for self-employed under 40 (National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680)
Loss of consortium head of compensation (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, 2018 (18) SCC 130)
Pain and suffering in death cases not to be awarded (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, 2020 (3) KHC 760)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased was engaged as an auto driver with real estate activities, earning about Rs. 6,000 per month. The Tribunal erroneously fixed income at Rs. 3,500. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the notional monthly income for 2007 should be Rs. 6,000 and, under Pranay Sethi, 40% future prospects should be added for self-employed under 40, resulting in Rs. 8,400 per month. With a 15-year multiplier and two-thirds deduction for personal expenses, the loss of dependency should be Rs. 10,08,000. Funeral expenses should be Rs. 16,500 (Rs. 15,000 plus 10% escalation for three years per Pranay Sethi). The appellants are entitled to Rs. 40,000 each for loss of consortium, totaling Rs. 1,32,000, and Rs. 16,500 for loss of estate (Pranay Sethi’s cap). Pain and suffering in death cases was not to be allowed (per Satinder Kaur). The award for love and affection (Rs. 30,000) was to be subsumed under loss of consortium. The overall aim was to align compensation with judicial precedents and ensure just and adequate relief to the family.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Tribunal’s award was reasonable and that the claim for Rs. 9,21,000 was exorbitant. The insurer admitted the policy but challenged the quantum, contending that the Tribunal’s calculation was prudent and that the notional income and prospective uplift had to be balanced with the evidence on record.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to determine the notional monthly income for the deceased in 2007 as Rs. 6,000.
National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Adopted 40% future prospects for self-employed under 40 and the related uplift for future prospects.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others	(2018) 18 SCC 130	Positive	Supported recognition of loss of consortium for wife and children and guidance on uplift and heads of compensation.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others	(2020) 3 KHC 760	Positive	Applied principle that Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering is not permissible in a death case; set aside.

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 Deeepa (on behalf of her minor children Amal and Amrutha) v. Abdurahman, Suresh Babu and The New India Assurance Company Limited 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 BASANT BALAJI`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 212 OF 2014`** ## **`OPMV 427/2008 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR`** ## **`ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,THRISSUR`** ## **`APPELLANT/S:`** - `1 SMT.DEEPA AGED 35 YEARS S/O.LATE ANILAN,` - `2 AMAL MINOR AGED 17 YEARS S/O.LATE ANILAN` - `3 AMRUTHA MINOR AGED 15 YEARS D/O.LATE ANILAN(MINOR APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN)ALL ARE RESIDING AT NAMBATH HOUSE, CHOWANNUR,KANIPAYYUR P.O. (VIA) KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 ABDURAHMAN,S/O.KUNHAMMA, RESIDING AT THAZHATHALATH HOUSE,P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, CALICUT - 673 571` - `2 SURESH BABU,S/O.PARUKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANNARKUNNU HOUSE,KARANNOOR, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, CALICUT - 673 571` - `3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CALICUT - 673 001.` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` ADV. LAL K JOSEPH FOR THE RESPONDENT ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 15[th] day of July 2022) The appellants are the petitioners in O.P. (MV) No.427 of 2008 on the files of the MACT, Thrissur are the appellants herein. The claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts of the case is as follows: The appellants are the wife and children of deceased Anilan, who died in an accident which occurred on 12.12.2007 at about 3 am. The deceased was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 8/S- 1598 through Kuttippuram – Kunnamkulam State Highway and when the motor cycle reached near Parempadam a lorry bearing Reg.No. KL11/K 4569 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle. Due to the impact of the hit, the deceased was thrown away to the public road and he sustained serious head and other multiple injuries. On the way to Amala Hospital, Thrissur, he succumbed to the injuries. The first respondent is the ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` -3- registered owner and the third respondent is the insurer. The appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs.9,21,000/-, but the claim limited to Rs.8,00,000/- in the petition. 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained exparte. The 3[rd] respondent/insurer filed a written statement and admitted the insurance policy. It was contended that the quantum of compensation claimed is exorbitant. 4. The Tribunal, relying on Exts.A1 to A9, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,08,000/-. It is aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, this appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was an auto driver an doing real estate business earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,500/-. Going by the decision reported in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [2011 (13) SCC 236]**_ , the notional monthly income of a deceased, to be taken for an accident which took place in 2007 is ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` -4- Rs.6,000/-. The appellant was aged 38 years and relying on a decision in _**National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi**_ ( _**2017 (16) SCC 680),**_ the deceased being self employed below the age of 40 years, 40% future prospectus ought to have been awarded. To this, 40% future prospectus should also be added. So the monthly income would be Rs.6,000+2,400 (6,000x40/100)=Rs.8400/-. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is in order, which is 15. Since the deceased is survived his wife and two children, one third of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus the loss of dependency can be worked out as Rs.8400×12×15×2÷3 = 10,08,000/-, less Rs.4,20,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Towards funeral expenses, only Rs.5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Going by the decision reported in **Pranay Sethi (supra),** the maximum amount that can be awarded under the head funeral is expenses Rs.15,000+10% escalation for three years which come to Rs.16,500/-. ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` -5- 7. The appellants/claimants being the wife and children, going by the decision reported in **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]** , are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of compensation for loss of consortium. They are also entitled to 10% increase every three years as per the decision reported in **Pranay Sethi (supra),** and thus, the 10% increase would come to Rs.44,000 x3 , i.e., Rs.1,32,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.35000/- under the said head. But the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection. When loss of consortium is awarded, loss of love and affection cannot be awarded over and above the loss of consortium. Hence, the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the head of loss of love and affection is set aside. 8. As far as the compensation for loss of estate is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/against the claim of Rs.50,000/-. Relying on the decision ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` -6- mentioned in _**Pranay Sethi**_ (supra), the maximum amount of compensation for lost of estate is Rs.15,000 + 10% escalation for three years which comes to Rs.16,500/- and accordingly, the appellants are entitled for the same. 9. Going by the decision reported in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others [2020(3) KHC 760]** , since this is a death case, Rs.10,000/- allowed towards pain and sufferings cannot granted. Hence, the award of Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, is set aside. 10. Accordingly, the following modifications are made to the award passed by the Tribunal: |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)|Amt. Enhanced in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|4,20,000/-|10,08,000/-| |2.|Funeral expenses|5,000/-|16,500/-| |3.|Loss of consortium|35,000/-|1,32,000/-| ||Loss of estate|5,000|16,500| ||Total|4,65,000/-|11,73,000/-| ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` -7- ||Amount enhanced – 11,71,500-4,65,000**=7,08,000/-**|Amount enhanced – 11,71,500-4,65,000**=7,08,000/-**|Amount enhanced – 11,71,500-4,65,000**=7,08,000/-**| |---|---|---|---| ||**Less** (Awards set aside)||| ||Love and affection|-|30,000/-| ||Pain and suffering|-|10,000/-| ||Total (deductions)||**40,000/-**| ||Total amount enhanced -**7,08,000- 40,000=** **Rs.6,68,000/**-||| In the result, the appeal is allowed. The insurance company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the amount shall be transferred to the bank account directly through NEF/RTGS mode within a period of one month thereafter. If the bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no ``` MACA NO. 212 OF 2014 ``` interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled for interest for the period of delay of 137 days in filing the Appeal, as per order of this Court dated 11.1.2022, on the enhanced compensation. sd **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_