Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal Allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs. 5,...

Jayasree and others v. Akbar Roshan and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.765 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2019-08-05
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed; the claimants are awarded an additional Rs.5,61,500 as compensation, with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount. All other directions in the impugned award remain in force; the Tribunal may be approached for directions regarding deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount.
Final Disposition
Appeal Allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs. 5,61,500 with 7.5% interest on the enhanced amount; other directions in the award remain unchanged.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jayasree
  • Greeshma
  • Amal
  • Appu
  • Santha

Respondents

  • Akbar Roshan
  • The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • R. T. Pradeep
  • • J. Robinson

Counsels for Respondents

  • • J. Jayakumar
  • • N. S. NajeeB

Case Synopsis & Summary

The claimants filed a petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after Sunilkumar, aged 36, died in a motor accident on 30.06.2007. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,98,500, which the appellants challenged as inadequate. The court found no reliable evidence of the deceased's income and, accordingly, accepted a monthly income of Rs. 3,000 for computing dependency loss. Relying on Apex Court precedents Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, it held that income for similarly placed workers could be taken at Rs. 6,000, and, applying Pranay Sethi's principles, that one-fourth should be deducted for personal expenses and 40% added as future prospects given the deceased's age of 36, with a 15-year multiplier, resulting in a dependency figure of about Rs. 11.34 lakh. The Tribunal's Rs. 6,07,500 under this head was inadequate; the court awarded an additional Rs. 5,26,500. The judge also directed conventional damages: Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering; Rs. 35,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 12,500 for loss of estate, and Rs. 12,500 for funeral expenses. Citing Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram, the court held Rs. 35,000 each for parents and children as love and affection, increasing the amount by Rs. 90,000 under that head. In total, additional compensation of Rs. 5,61,500. Interest at 7.5% on the additional amount; other award directions remain.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • One-fourth deduction towards personal expenses (Dependant's head)
  • 40% addition towards future prospects for deceased below 40
  • Multiplier method for dependency (age-based multiplier)
  • Conventional compensation for pain and suffering
  • Love and affection awards (parents and children)
  • Award for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased’s income and the resulting dependency loss were underestimated. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., they contended that a higher monthly income (Rs.6,000) should be considered for a 27/2007 accident context, with 40% future prospects and a 15-year multiplier, after a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, and that conventional damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses) should be aligned with precedents including Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants sought enhanced compensation totaling the additional Rs.5,61,500 along with interest at 7.5%.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly detailed in the judgment.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCourt relied on Ramachandrappa for fixing the deceased’s monthly income in the absence of direct evidence.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(2014) 2 SCC 735PositiveCourt used Syed Sadiq to justify income reckoning for similarly placed persons.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC)PositiveCourt applied Pranay Sethi principles on future prospects and personal expense deduction.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others(2018 ACJ 2782)PositiveCourt followed Magma’s framework for award of love and affection to parents/children.

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 Jayasree and others v. Akbar Roshan and Oriental 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** **MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941** **MACA.No.765 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1195/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL DATED 11.09.2015** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 JAYASREE, AGED 36, W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, AMBALATHINKARA HARIJAN COLONY, TOWN WARD, KAZHAKKUTTAM.** - **2 GREESHMA,** - **AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.JAYASREE, AMBALATHINKARA HARIJAN COLONY, TOWN WARD, KAZHAKKUTTAM.** - **3 AMAL,** - **AGED 18 YERS, AMBALATHINKARA HARIJAN COLONY, TOWN WARD, KAZHAKKUTTAM.** - **4 APPU, AGED 67 YEARS, AMBALATHINKARA HARIJAN COLONY, TOWN WARD, KAZHAKKUTTAM.** - **5 SANTHA,** - **AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.APPU, AMBALATHINKARA HARIJAN COLONY, TOWN WARD, KAZHAKKUTTAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.J.ROBINSON** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 AKBAR ROSHAN, THAHADIAL HOUSE, THELLAKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 016.** - **2 THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.D.O.2 KOTTAYAM, TRIO CHAMBERS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** M.A.C.A No.765 of 2016 2 **R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.NAJEEB** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.765 of 2016 3 ## **M.A.C.A No.765 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 Sunilkumar aged 36 years died on 30.06.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident took place on 27.6.2007. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a head-load worker. His parents, wife and two minor 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.7,98,500/- by way of M.A.C.A No.765 of 2016 4 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 appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.3,000/- 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, 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 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- M.A.C.A No.765 of 2016 5 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 can be certainly reckoned at Rs.6,000/-, in the context of the accident took place in 2007. 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 five in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged below 40, 40% 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 36, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '15'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.11,34,000/(Rs.6,000x12x3/4x140/100x15). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.6,07,500/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional M.A.C.A No.765 of 2016 6 compensation of Rs.5,26,500/-. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all death cases including cases of instantaneous death towards compensation for pain and suffering. In so far as the death in the instant case is after a few days of the accident, the claimants, according to me, are therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation under this head. 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 2007, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.35,000/to the wife of the deceased towards compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.12,500/- towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.12,500/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,35,000/under those three heads. Rs.75,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the above three heads is excessive and liable to be adjusted against the additional compensation payable. Coming M.A.C.A No.765 of 2016 7 to 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), having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2007, I am of the view that the parents and children of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- each. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.50,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.90,000/- by way of additional compensation. Thus, the total additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.5,61,500/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,61,500/- 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.765 of 2016 amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** Mn **JUDGE**