High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-19MACA allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.4,77,...

Dhanya, Anjana and Adarsh v. Joji Varghese and Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Remani and Sasi

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2806 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Judgment Date: 2023-06-19
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court found the compensation under other heads just and reasonable but enhanced the overall award by Rs.4,77,800, directing the 2nd respondent to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest from the date of petition to the date of deposit, along with proportionate costs within two months of receipt of a certified copy. Apportionment of compensation among appellants and respondents 3 and 4 would be as fixed by the Tribunal. The court clarified that the appellants would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the delay in filing the appeal (as per order dated 27.02.2023 in C.M. Appl. No.1/2022). The MACA is allowed.
Final Disposition: MACA allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.4,77,800; insurer to deposit with 9% interest and costs within two months; apportionment to be as Tribunal; no interest on enhanced amount for delay in filing appeal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

DHANYA
ANJANA
ADARSH

Respondents

JOJI VARGHESE
THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EDAPPAL BRANCH
REMANI
SASI

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.M.FIROZ

Counsels for Respondents

• N.S.NAJEEB
• K.S.SANTHI
• RESHMI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellants, Dhanya (through her daughter Anjana and son Adarsh, represented by their mother), challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha’s award in OP(MV) No.590/2011, which awarded Rs.13,68,000 as compensation for the death of Sajimon (Saji) in a motor vehicle accident on 16.01.2011. Sajimon, a cook earning Rs.8,000/month, died after a collision between his motorcycle and a mini lorry driven by the first respondent. The petition claimed Rs.8 lakhs. The Tribunal accepted some heads, but the appellants contended the income and head-wise amounts were inadequately computed. They relied on Ramachandrappa to argue a higher notional income (Rs.8,000/month) and on Pranay Sethi to base future prospects at 40% (given five dependents) with a 1/4 deduction for personal living expenses, resulting in a higher loss of dependency (Rs.16,12,800) and an additional claim of Rs.5,32,800 beyond the Tribunal’s award. They also argued funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000 (not Rs.25,000), reduction of loss of consortium with Rs.40,000 per dependent (total Rs.2,00,000, with Rs.1,00,000 additional) and disallowance of love and affection and pain and suffering heads in line with recent jurisprudence (Pranay Sethi, Kahlon). The insurer contended the compensation was not exorbitant and challenged the deceased’s age, income and occupation. The Kerala High Court allowed enhancement of Rs.4,77,800, directing deposit with interest at 9% and costs, and clarified apportionment as fixed by the Tribunal, while deterring interest on the enhanced amount for delay in filing the appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income rule for deceased based on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236
40% future prospects for income in case of non-permanent employment per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680
Deduction of personal living expenses at 1/4 when there are multiple dependents per Pranay Sethi principles
Multiplier for dependency loss: 16 (as applied in the judgment) and standard tariff for calculation
Disallowance of duplicate heads (loss of love and affection vs consortium) per United India Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076
Pain and suffering head reconsideration per Kahlon, AIR 2021 SC 3913
Funeral expenses adjustment per Pranay Sethi, 15,000 instead of 25,000

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal adopted a low notional income of Rs.5,000/month for Sajimon though he was a cook earning Rs.8,000/month. Relying on Ramachandrappa, they assert the notional monthly income should be Rs.8,000 and, by applying 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi with a 1/4 deduction for personal living expenses (five dependents: widow, two children and two parents), the notional income for calculation should be Rs.11,200. Thus, loss of dependency should be Rs.16,12,800 (Rs.11,200 x 12 x 16 x 3/4). With Rs.10,80,000 already awarded under this head, they seek an additional Rs.5,32,800. They also challenge the funeral expenses (Rs.25,000) and seek Rs.15,000; loss of consortium should be Rs.2,00,000 (Rs.40,000 to each of four dependents), with an additional Rs.1,00,000 over and above what was already granted. They seek deduction of Rs.1,00,000 from pain and suffering (per Kahlon) and Rs.35,000 from loss of estate (to Rs.15,000). They argue that the overall compensation should be enhanced to Rs.4,77,800 as determined by the High Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The Insurance Company contends that the claimed compensation is exorbitant and disputes the deceased’s age, income and occupation. The 1st respondent driver remained ex parte. The company maintains that the Tribunal’s figure is reasonable and the notional income adopted does not warrant the higher enhancement urged by the appellants. It asserts no liability if the amount sought is beyond what the facts justify, and emphasizes that the Tribunal’s other heads were appropriate under the established jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify adopting a higher notional income (Rs.8,000) for the deceased.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to apply 40% future prospects in calculation and guidance on head-wise deduction as per Pranay Sethi standards.
United India Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur	AIR 2020 SC 3076	Positive	Used to deny double recovery: when consortium is awarded, love and affection cannot be awarded.
Kahlon v. United India Insurance Co.	AIR 2021 SC 3913	Positive	Used to reduce or deny compensation under pain and suffering in light of related holdings.

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 Dhanya, Anjana and Adarsh v. Joji Varghese and Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Remani and Sasi 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1945 MACA NO. 2806 OF 2022 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.07.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.590/2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - `1 DHANYA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.DANANJAYAN, PANCHAYATH COLONY, PUNNAPRA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PUNNAPRA P.O, PIN - 688004` - `2 ANJANA, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.LATE SAJI MON, PANCHAYATH COLONY, PUNNAPRA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUNNAPRA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688004` - `3 ADARSH, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.LATE SAJI MON, PANCHAYATH COLONY, PUNNAPRA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUNNAPRA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688004` ``` REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN DHANYA, D/O.DANANJAYAN, PANCHAYATH COLONY, PUNNAPRA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688004 BY ADV K.M.FIROZ ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 JOJI VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE ALIAS KOCHU VARKEY, KOLANJERY HOUSE, EZHAM MUKHAM, P.O KARUKUTTY PANCHAYATH, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM HAVING CORRECT ADDRESS AT KOLEMCHERY HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM P.O, MOOKKANNUR VIA, PALISSERY, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683577` - `2 THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EDAPPAL BRANCH, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 679576` 2 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` 3REMANI, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.SASI, AGED 71, PLAPPALLYMADAM, SANATHANAPURAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA RESIDING AT WARD NO.X, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYATH, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688003 ``` ``` 4SASI, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, PLAPPALLIMADAM, WARD NO.X, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYATH, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688003. ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.S.NAJEEB K.S.SANTHI ``` ``` BY ADV.RESHMI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ## **`MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19[th] of June, 2023 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.590 of 2011 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Alappuzha. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. ``` ``` 2. The petitioners are the wife and two children of deceased Sajimon @ Saji, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.01.2011. According to the petitioners, while the deceased Sajimon was riding a motor cycle, a mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL41-B/7967, driven by the 1[st] respondent, rashly and negligently, hit against the motor cycle and ``` 4 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` the deceased suffered serious injuries, to which he succumbed on the way to hospital. The deceased was a cook by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. The mother and father of the deceased were arrayed as respondents 3 & 4 in the claim petition. The ``` ``` 1[st] respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, remainedex parte. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.8 lakhs as compensation for the death of the deceased. ``` ``` 3. The 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying the liability. They contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased. ``` ``` 4. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.13,68,000/-undervariousheads. ``` 5 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ## **`Compensation awarded under various heads is as`** ## **`follows:`** |**`Sl.`** **`No`**|**`Head of Claim`**|**`Amount`** **`claimed`**|**`Amount`** **`awarded`**| |---|---|---|---| |**`1`**|**`Transport to`** **`hospital`**|**`3000`**|**`3000`**| |**`2`**|**`Funeral`** **`expenses`**|**`25000`**|**`25000`**| |**`3`**|**`Love and`** **`affection`**|**`100000`**|**`100000`**| |**`4`**|**`Consortium`**|**`100000`**|**`100000`**| |**`5`**|**`Medical bills`**|**`10000`**|**`--`**| |**`6`**|**`Pain and`** **`suffering`**|**`50000`**|**`10000`**| |**`7`**|**`Loss of`** **`dependency`**|**`1152000`**|**`1080000`**| |**`8`**|**`Loss of estate`**|**`100000`**|**`50000`**| |**`9`**|**`Future`** **`prosperity`**|**`400000`**|**`---`**| |**`10`**|**`Damage`** **`clothings`**|**`2500`**|**`---`**| ||**`Total`**|**`1942500`** **`(limited to`** **`Rs.8,00,000/-`**|**`1368000`**| 6 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` Contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are too low, the petitioners have preferred this appeal. ``` ``` 5. According the petitioners, the Tribunal has taken the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- only. The deceased was a cook and was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. In the absence of any other evidence as regards his income, only notional income can be taken for the purpose of assessment of compensation. In the light of the judgment in Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236), the notional monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal has added 50% of the income towards future prospects. The deceased not being a permanent employee, only 40% of the income can ``` 7 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` be added towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (5) KHC 350 : 2017 (4) KLT 662]. Therefore, the income has to be taken as Rs.11,200 [8000+8000x 40/100]. Since there are 5 dependents [the widow, two children and parents], the deductions towards personal living expenses of the deceased has to be taken as 1/4[th]. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier as 16. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,12,800/- towards compensation for loss of dependency [11200x12x 16x3/4]. Since an amount of Rs.10,80,000/- has already been awarded under the said head, the petitioners are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,32,800 [16,12,800-10,80,000]. ``` 8 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` 6. Towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded. As per the decision of the Apex Court inPranay Sethi [supra], the petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head funeral expenses. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted under the said head. ``` ``` 7. Towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded. The deceased was survived by the widow, two children and parents. All of them are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium (Pranay Sethi[supra]). Accordingly, the petitioners are granted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium. On deducting the amount already awarded, the petitioners are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss ``` 9 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` of consortium. ``` ``` 8. The petitioners have been awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. In the light of the decision reported inUnited India Insurance Company v. Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076], since they are compensated under the head loss of consortium, no amount can be granted under the head loss of love and affection. Accordingly, Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the said head has to be deducted. ``` ``` 9. Towards pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are not entitled for any compensation under the head pain and suffering. [ The Oriental Insurance Company V. Kahlon (AIR 2021 SC 3913). Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the said head has to be deducted. ``` 10 ``` M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022 ``` ``` 10. Towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the said head (Pranay Sethi [supra]). Accordingly, an amount of Rs.35,000/- has to be deducted from the said head. ``` ``` 11. I find that the compensation awarded under the other heads is just and reasonable. ``` ``` 12. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.4,77,800/- as compensation. The 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The apportionment of ``` **`M.A.C.A.No.2806 of 2022`** 11 ``` compensation among the appellants and respondents 3 & 4 will be as fixed by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the appellants will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay in filing the appeal in terms of the order dated 27.02.2023 in C.M.Appl.No.1/2022. The M.A.C.A is allowed. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/19/06/2023 ```