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

Geetha A.G. and others v. Mohammed Fasil and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1467 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2019-09-18
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed; claimants entitled to an additional Rs 2,45,000 as compensation, with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount. All other directions in the impugned award remain in force; interlocutory applications closed.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; directions of the Tribunal retained except for the increase in compensation; 7.5% interest on the enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Geetha A.G.
  • Vipindas K.G.
  • Subin
  • Yesoda

Respondents

  • Mohammed Fasil
  • Fathima
  • The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri Sheji P. Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Sri P.K. Sajeev

Case Synopsis & Summary

Geetha A.G., Vipindas K.G., Subin and Yesoda, claimants in a motor accident compensation petition, challenged the MACT Irinjalakuda award on the death of Gopi (51) in July 2010. The Tribunal awarded Rs 7,92,250, which the appellants argued was inadequate. The High Court reevaluated the evidence, noting that the Tribunal had based income on a Rs 5,000 monthly figure due to lack of direct evidence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the court held that the deceased’s monthly income could reasonably be taken as Rs 7,500 for 2010, and, applying Pranay Sethi, deducted one quarter for personal expenses for four dependants, and added 10% future prospects with a multiplier of 11 (age 51). This produced a loss of dependency of Rs 8,16,750, far exceeding the Tribunal’s award. The court also noted that compensation for clothing and articles, pain and suffering, loss of consortium (Rs 40,000 to the wife), loss of estate (Rs 15,000) and funeral expenses required enhancement. Drawing on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others, the mother and children were entitled to Rs 40,000 each for love and affection, and a further Rs 20,000 aggregate. The appeal was allowed, granting an additional Rs 2,45,000 with interest of 7.5% on the enhanced amount, while other directions remained unchanged.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal undervalued compensation by sticking to a Rs 5,000 monthly income due to lack of direct evidence. They relied on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to fix Rs 7,500 per month for the deceased in 2010. Applying Pranay Sethi, they argued for deduction of one quarter for personal expenses for four dependants, with 10% future prospects and a multiplier of 11 (age 51). They urged higher awards for loss of clothing and articles, pain and suffering, loss of consortium (Rs 40,000 to the wife), loss of estate (Rs 15,000) and funeral expenses. They also claimed Rs 40,000 each for love and affection and sought overall enhanced compensation of Rs 2,45,000 plus 7.5% interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s award was justified on the evidence before it and that the award should stand, with no basis for the enhanced sums proposed by the appellants; they relied on the need for careful consideration of income evidence and the balance of heads under the MACT framework.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2011) 13 SCC 236]PositiveCourt relied on Ramachandrappa to determine the deceased’s monthly income for computing loss of dependency.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2014) 2 SCC 735]PositiveCourt used Syed Sadiq as authority for appropriate income figures in similar contexts.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]PositiveApplied Pranay Sethi guidelines on future prospects and deduction for dependants.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others(2018 ACJ 2782)PositiveCited for higher awards under love and affection heads for parents/relatives.

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 Geetha A.G. and others v. Mohammed Fasil and 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 175/2011 DATED 15-02-2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**GEETHA A.G.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. LATE GOPI K.V.,**| ||**KOLANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLAI P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR-680 305. (WIFE OF DECEASED GOPI)**| |**2**|**VIPINDAS K.G.,**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPI K.V.,**| ||**KOLANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLAI P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR-680 305. (SON OF DECEASED GOPI)**| |**3**|**SUBIN,**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPI K.V.,**| ||**KOLANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLAI P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR-680 305. (SON OF DECEASED GOPI)**| |**4**|**YESODA,**| ||**AGED 75 YEARS, W/O. VELAYUDHAN,**| ||**KULANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLAI P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR-680 305. (MOTHER OF DECEASED GOPI)**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM**| ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 MOHAMMED FASIL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MALIK, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, SAIDINA MANZIL LANE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2 FATHIMA, PROPRIETOR, MISSYED ATTARS, SYEDNA, 682 018. 43/2624, GROUND FLOOR, MASJID LANE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018.** **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **2** **3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. SAI SERVICE STATION LTD., 50/III51, CHERANALLOR ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **3** ## **M.A.C.A No. 1467 of 2016** ## **---------------------------------------------** ## **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 Gopi, aged 51 years died in a motor accident took place on 9.7.2010. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a business man. His mother, wife and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.7,92,250/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal. 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.9,000/- per month, in the **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **4** absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.5,000/- 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 deceased in the instant case could have been certainly reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.7500/-, in the context of the accident took place in 2010. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay** **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **5** **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 50 and below 60, 10% 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 51, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '11'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.8,16,750/-(Rs.7500x12x3/4x110/100x11). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.5,69,250/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,47,500/-. 6. No amount has been granted by way of compensation to the claimants towards damage to clothing and articles. Even in the absence of any evidence, I am of the view that the tribunal should have granted some amount by way of compensation under that head. Having regard to the fact that **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **6** the accident is one that took place in the year 2010, according to me, the tribunal could have granted atleast a sum of Rs.2500/- under that head. Similarly, it is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- under that head. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, Rs.15,000/- would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants under that head. Rs.10,000/- granted by way of compensation under that head is, therefore, excessive. 7. 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 2010, 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/- **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **7** towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses. As the Tribunal has granted Rs.85,000/- under these three heads, Rs.15,000/- granted under the said heads is excessive. 8. 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 accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2010, I am of the view that the mother and children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of additional compensation. 9. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 10. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,45,000/- by way of additional compensation. **MACA.No.1467 OF 2016** **8** In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- 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 amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** ## **YKB**