Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation with inte...

Fausia and others v. The Manager Fair Exports India Pvt. Ltd., Swayambhulingam Thiraviyam Nivas and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1938 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date
2019-08-30
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,06,500 over the Tribunal award, with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount. All other directions contained in the impugned award shall stand. Interlocutory applications are closed. The Tribunal may make such orders as to deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount as may be necessary.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with interest; other Tribunal directions preserved.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Fausia
  • Faizal
  • Femina Mol
  • Rukhiya Beevi

Respondents

  • The Manager Fair Exports India Pvt. Ltd.
  • Swayambhulingam Thiraviyam Nivas
  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Legy Abraham
  • • Sri Abe Rajan.K
  • • Sri Shane Wilfred Moris

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri P.V.Jyothi Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

In MACA No.1938 of 2013 before the Kerala High Court, claimants Fausia, Faizal, Femina Mol and Rukhhiya Beevi challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam’s award of Rs.11,20,000 for the death of Naisamudeen Kunju in a 2011 motor accident (helicopter? no—fruit vendor). The deceased, aged around 44, died in 2011 and the petition sought Rs.15,00,000. The Tribunal did not have adequate evidence of income and assessed Rs.6,000 per month for dependency loss. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, and later Pranay Sethi guidelines, the High Court found that the income should be higher (Rs.7,000) and, applying four dependants with a 25% to future prospects and a multiplier of 14, recalculated the dependency compensation to Rs.11,02,500. The Court also increased awards for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 to wife), loss of estate (Rs.15,000) and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000) totaling Rs.70,000, and added Rs.40,000 each for loss of love and affection to mother and children (Rs.1,20,000), with an overall additional compensation of Rs.5,06,500. The final order allows the appeal and grants the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest, while keeping other Tribunal directions intact.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Pranay Sethi formula for compensation (loss of dependency, future prospects, and multiplier)
  • Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 – income assessment for dependents
  • Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 – income norms for similar cases
  • Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others (2018 ACJ 2782) – awards for love and affection

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased’s income should be Rs.7,000 per month as claimed in the petition, supported by decisions of the Supreme Court (Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq) that fixed income norms for similarly placed persons be used in calculating compensation. With four dependants, one-fourth should be deducted for personal expenses and future prospects should be added (25%) given the age (44) of the deceased, applying multiplier 14. Using these figures, loss of dependency should be around Rs.11,02,500 (Rs.7,000×12×3/4×125/100×14). They argued for additional sums for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000), loss of estate (Rs.15,000), funeral expenses (Rs.15,000), and Rs.40,000 each for love and affection to mother and children (Rs.1,20,000). The total claimed enhancement was Rs.5,06,500. They requested directions for deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s conclusions were sound given the lack of reliable evidence on the deceased’s actual income. They urged adherence to the Tribunal’s findings and opposed adopting higher incomes from other cases. They argued the award already reflects a reasonable assessment and that the Pranay Sethi framework must be applied cautiously, not to disproportionately inflate compensation. The respondent’s counsel emphasised maintaining the Tribunal’s discretion and avoiding speculative enhancements.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2011) 13 SCC 236]PositiveUsed to justify higher income for similarly placed persons in determining dependency.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2014) 2 SCC 735]PositiveUsed to fix income levels for similar circumstances in computing compensation.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]PositivePranay Sethi formula applied for loss of dependency and future prospects with deductions for personal expenses.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others(2018 ACJ 2782)PositiveUsed to justify higher awards for love and affection.

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 Fausia and others v. The Manager Fair Exports India Pvt. Ltd., Swayambhulingam Thiraviyam Nivas and United India Insurance Co. 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 MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 8TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1938 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.366/2012 DATED 08-05-2013 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**FAUSIA,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**W/O.NAISAMUDEEN KUNJU, FAIZAL MANZIL,**| ||**PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN - 690524, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**FAIZAL**| ||**AGED 12 YEARS**| ||**S/O.NAISAMUDEEN KUNJU, FAIZAL MANZIL,**| ||**PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN – 690 524, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**FEMINA MOL**| ||**AGED 6 YEARS**| ||**S/O.NAISAMUDEEN KUNJU, FAIZAL MANZIL,**| ||**PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN – 690 524, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**RUKHIYA BEEVI**| ||**AGED 64 YEARS**| ||**D/O.ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, KALEEKKAVILAYIL,**| ||**MOTTACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, PIN 690524.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.ABE RAJAN.K SRI.SHANE WILFRED MORIS** 2 ## M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MANAGER FAIR EXPORTS INDIA PVT., LTD., TC 35/987, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 008.** - **2 SWAYAMBHULINGAM THIRAVIYAM NIVAS, CHANTHAVILA, KARIPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 541.** - **3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, VAVANEETHA BUILDING, MUKKADA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM – 691 501.** - **R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 3 ## **M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013** **---------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. One Naisamudeen Kunju, aged 44 years died on 02.10.2011 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident took place on 05.09.2011. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a fruit vendor. His mother, wife and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal. M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 4 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea as regards the income of the deceased, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq** v. **Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** , [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/- in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, I am of the view that the monthly income of the 5 M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 deceased in the instant case could have been certainly reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- itself in the context of the accident took place in 2011 as claimed in the proceedings. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the dependants of the deceased were four in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged above 40 and below 50, 25% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 44, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '14'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.11,02,500/(Rs.7000x12x3/4x125/100x14). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.7,56,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional 6 M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 compensation of Rs.3,46,500/-. 6. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2011, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.40,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards compensation for loss of consortium. Similarly, in the light of the said decision, the Tribunal should have granted to the claimants Rs.15,000/towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.25,000/- under those heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.45,000/under those heads. 7. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and others** (2018 ACJ 2782) and having regard to the fact that the M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 7 accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2011, I am of the view that the mother and children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, totalling to Rs.1,20,000/-. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- by way of additional compensation. 8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 9. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,06,500/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,06,500/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional 8 M.A.C.A No.1938 of 2013 amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** DK