High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-08-13Appeal and cross objection disposed of; additio...

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. SUSHAMA P., SHIMNA P., MITHUN P. S/O MOHANDAS P

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.3517/2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-08-13
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the appeal and cross objection are disposed of by granting the claimants Rs. 2,71,184 as additional compensation with interest at 7.5% on that amount; all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand.
Final Disposition: Appeal and cross objection disposed of; additional compensation awarded to claimants; Tribunal directions remain in force for all other aspects.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Respondents

SUSHAMA P., W/o MOHANDAS P
SHIMNA P, D/o MOHANDAS P
MITHUN P, S/o MOHANDAS P

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri George Cherian (Sr.)
• Sri K.S. Santhi
• Sri Latha Susan Cherian

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. Rajesh Sukumaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court motor-accident claims appeal concerns an insurer challenging an MACT Thalassery award and the claimants’ cross-objections challenging the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mohandas, aged 54, died on 21.12.2013 due to a motor accident on 27.07.2013; his mother Sushama P., wife and two children were the claimants. The Tribunal awarded Rs 13,91,816 as compensation against the prayed Rs 15,00,000; the insurer argued that the amount was excessive. The High Court, after hearing submissions, relied on Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq) to determine the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 9,000 for 2013, instead of the Tribunal’s figure. For dependency, it applied the Pranay Sethi framework: 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, 10% addition for future prospects, and a multiplier of 11 given the deceased’s age (54). The court recalculated loss of dependency to Rs 9,80,100, finding the Tribunal’s Rs 7,07,916 inadequate. The court also increased conventional damages for pain and suffering from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000, as death occurred 117 days after the accident. It deducted Rs 26,000 from loss of earnings head as excessive. Ultimately, the appeal and cross-objection were disposed of by granting Rs 2,71,184 as additional compensation with 7.5% interest, while all other directions of the impugned award stood.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and suffering.
Deduction of 1/4 for personal expenses (as per Pranay Sethi) and addition of future prospects (10%), with multiplier concepts for dependency calculations.
Future prospects addition and multiplier approach (Pranay Sethi)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Insurer contended that the Tribunal’s compensation was excessive; urged recalculation in line with Supreme Court precedents on income estimation and the Pranay Sethi framework to enhance the award only if warranted.

Contentions of Respondents

Claimants contended that the Tribunal’s award was inadequate and warranted enhancement; urged application of standard formulae for loss of dependency, pain and suffering, and other heads in line with jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used as a benchmark to determine the appropriate monthly income for similarly placed workers, guiding the court to adopt Rs.9,000 as the deceased’s monthly income for 2013.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited for similar income benchmarks and supporting the income-rate approach in the context of earlier accidents, reinforcing the Rs.9,000 monthly figure.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]	Positive	Cited for the Pranay Sethi framework: 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, 10% future prospects, and the multiplier approach used to compute dependency-based 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 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. SUSHAMA P., SHIMNA P., MITHUN P. S/O MOHANDAS P 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** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.3517 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20-03-2018 IN O.P (MV) 835/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT :-** **HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KANAKATH TOWER, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAT JUNCTION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL), REGIONAL OFFICE, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3 :-** - **1 SUSHAMA P., W/O MOHANDAS P, RESIDING AT SURESH VILLA, CHIRAKKU TAZHE, PO-KIZHUNNA, KANNUR TALUK** - **2 SHIMNA P. D/O.MOHANDAS P, RESIDING AT SURESH VILLA, CHIRAKKU TAZHE, PO-KIZHUNNA, KANNUR TALUK** - **3 MITHUN P. S/O.MOHANDAS P, RESIDING AT SURESH VILLA, CHIRAKKU THAZHE, PO-KIZHUNNA, KANNUR TALUK R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2019, ALONG WITH CO.24/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **CO.No.24 OF 2019 IN MACA. 3517/2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.03.2018 IN IN O.P (MV) 835/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY** ## **CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN APPEAL :-** - **1 SUSHAMA P AGED 55 YEARS, W/O MOHANDAS.** - **2 SHIMNA P D/O MOHANDAS, AGED 35 YEARS.** - **3 MITHUN P S/O MOHANDAS, AGED 30 YEARS.** **(ALL THE CROSS OBJECTORS ARE RESIDING AT SURESH VILLA, CHIRAKKU THAZHE, P.O.KIZHUNNA, KANNUR)** **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.3RD RESPONDENT :-** **H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD 2ND FLOOR, KANAKATH TOWER, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAT JUNCTION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL), REGIONAL OFFICE, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM** 3 **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.3517/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** 4 ## **M.A.C.A No.3517 of 2018 & Cross Objection No.24 of 2019** ## **J U D G M E N T** The appeal is by the insurer in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the cross objection is by the claimant in the said proceedings. 2. One Mohandas, aged 54 years died on 21.12.2013 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 27.07.2013. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a electrician. 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.13,91,816/- by way of compensation. According to the claimants, the compensation granted is grossly inadequate and 5 ## **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** according to the insurer, the compensation granted is excessive. 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.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.6,500/- 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, I am of the view that 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 6 ## **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** 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, the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case, in the context of the accident took place in the year 2013, can be certainly reckoned at Rs.9,000/-, as claimed in the proceedings. 6. 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 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 7 ## **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** the deceased was aged 54, 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.9,80,100/-(Rs.9000x12x3/4x110/100x11). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.7,07,916/towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,72,184/-. 7. 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 only a sum of Rs.25,000/- under that head. As the death took place in the year 2013 and as the death was after 117 days of the accident, I am of the view that Rs.50,000/would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of additional 8 ## **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** compensation. 8. It is seen that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.26,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants towards loss of earnings. As the claimants are granted compensation for loss of dependency, they are not entitled to compensation under that head. The said sum of Rs.26,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is, therefore, excessive. Compensation granted under all other heads appears to be in order. 9. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,71,184/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal and cross objection are disposed of granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.2,71,184/- 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 9 ## **M.A.C.A No.3517/2018 Cross Objection No.24/2019** 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 and cross objection are closed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** ## **SMA**