High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-31Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

JESSY, REJO RAPHAEL and RAJI RAPHAEL v SURESH KUMAR, VINOD KUMAR N., RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Judgment Date: 2024-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part; the appellant/claimants are awarded an additional ₹3,96,800 over the tribunal’s award, with interest at 8% per annum from the petition date until realization, and proportionate costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, with the claimant providing PAN, AADHAAR, and bank details within one month; failure to do so permits deposit before the tribunal.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation and deposit ordered.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JESSY
REJO RAPHAEL
RAJI RAPHAEL

Respondents

SURESH KUMAR
VINOD KUMAR N.
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.P. Poulose
• P. J. Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Latha Susan Cherian (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2369 of 2019, heard an appeal by the claimants in OP(MV) No. 1362 of 2016 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda's award. The accident occurred on 6 September 2016 when a scooter ridden by the deceased collided with a car driven by the first and second respondents, resulting in fatal injuries on 13 September 2016. The appellants, as legal heirs, sought ₹20 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal held the accident was due to negligence of the vehicle's driver and awarded ₹9,28,500 against the insurer. The appellants argued that the tribunal erred in not fixing a higher notional income; relying on Ramachandrappa, they urged notional monthly income of ₹14,000 with 10% future prospects to ₹15,400, and consequently higher compensation for loss of dependency and loss of consortium, among others. They produced Exts A1–A18 to prove business. The insurer disputed liability and quantum, and no evidence was adduced by the respondents. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing total compensation by ₹3,96,800 at 8% interest with costs, directing deposit within two months and requiring PAN/AADHAAR and bank details. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.)
Future prospects / dependency calculations (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that the tribunal erred in depressing the deceased's earnings and in not adopting Ramachandrappa's notional income approach. They contend the deceased, aged 57, was a businessman running a provision store in his own building, evidenced by Ext.A12 and Ext.A16, and therefore notional monthly income should be ₹14,000 rather than ₹10,000. They rely on Ramachandrappa v. Manager to fix a higher income and on Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for adding future prospects at 10%, resulting in a monthly figure of ₹15,400. With 12 months and a 2/3 multiplier for dependency, the loss of dependency increases to ₹11,08,800; the award of loss of consortium should be ₹1,20,000 with ₹80,000 extra as loss of amenities. They contend that the tribunal’s other heads were just and reasonable, but the overall compensation requires revision, especially given the nature of the business and the age of the deceased. They also contend that documentary evidence suffices to prove earnings; thus the tribunal’s notional income and computation undervalued the loss and justice demands enhancement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend liability and quantum were correctly assessed by the Tribunal; the insurer admitted policy coverage but did not lead evidence and opposes enhancement on heads, maintaining that the Tribunal's award was just and proper; liability and quantum should not be liberalized on appeal.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Applied to support higher notional monthly income (Ramachandrappa principle).
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4) KLT 662(SC)	Positive	Cited for loss of dependency calculation and inclusion of future prospects.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010(2) KLT 802(SC)	Positive	Cited for calculation of future prospects and dependency-related heads.

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 JESSY, REJO RAPHAEL and RAJI RAPHAEL v SURESH KUMAR, VINOD KUMAR N., RELIANCE GENERAL 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 MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019** **OPMV NO.1362 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,** ## **IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 JESSY, AGED 51 YEARS WIDOW OF RAPHAEL, CHERUTHURUTHY HOUSE, ATTAPADAM MULLASSERY DESOM,THEKKAMURI VILLAGE, MURINGOOR, KINFRA PARA P.O., PIN-680309, CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.** - **2 REJO RAPHAEL, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. RAPHAEL (LATE), CHERUTHURUTHY HOUSE, ATTAPADAM MULLASSERY DESOM,THEKKAMURI VILLAGE, MURINGOOR, KINFRA PARA P.O., PIN-680309, CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.** - **3 RAJI RAPHAEL, AGED 21 YEARS D/O. RAPHAEL (LATE), CHERUTHURUTHY HOUSE, ATTAPADAM MULLASSERY DESOM,THEKKAMURI VILLAGE, MURINGOOR, KINFRA PARA P.O., PIN-680309, CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.** **BY ADVS. V.P.POULOSE SRI.P.J.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 SURESH KUMAR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KALLIDUMBI HOUSE, PULLASSERY P.O., PIN-679307, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE.** MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 ..2.. **2 VINOD KUMAR N., S/O. VIJAYA MENON, VINOD NIVAS, MULAYAMKAVU P.O., PIN-679337, KULUKKALLUR, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE. 3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALAM TOWERS, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014, KERALA STATE.** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT. LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN -SC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.1362 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 06.09.2016, while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-45-A-3907 through Angamaly-Chalakudy sector of NH 47 road, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-52-C-165 owned and driven by the first and second respondents before the tribunal respectively, hit against the scooter ridden by him, whereby he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 13.09.2016. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of 20,00,000/-.₹ 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of 9,28,500/- as compensation₹ under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads; 5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning 20,000/- per month, the tribunal₹ has fixed the notional monthly income at 10,000/-. It is₹ submitted that the deceased was a businessman, who was MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** running a provision store in a self owned building. The appellants produced Ext.A12 panchayat licence, Ext.A1 professional tax receipts and Ext.A16 ownership certificate to prove that the deceased was doing business in his own building. Though as per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional monthly income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at 10,500/-, considering₹ the fact that the deceased was a businessman aged 57 years at the time of the accident, I deem it appropriate to fix his the notional monthly income at 14,000/-. ₹ 5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the notional monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹14,000/-, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated by adding 10% future prospects to the refixed notional monthly income (14000 + 1400 = 15400). Thus, following the decisions in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of 11,08,800/-₹ MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** (15400 x 12 x 9 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of 3,16,800/- under the₹ head of loss of dependency. 5.3. Loss of consortium - Though the appellants claimed an amount of 2,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal₹ awarded only an amount of 40,000/-, which, according to the₹ appellants, is on the lower side. Following the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], the appellants 1 to 3, being the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, there will be an additional amount of 80,000/- towards loss of amenities.₹ 6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows; MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 ..7.. |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount claimed (in ) ₹|Amount awarded by the tribunal (in ) ₹|Modified in appeal (in ) ₹|Total compensation (in ) ₹| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Funeral expenses|50000|15000||15000| |2.|Transportation expenses|10000|5000||5000| |3.|Medical expenses|100000|11500||11500| |4.|Pain and sufferings|200000|30000||30000| |5.|Loss of dependency|2000000|792000|316800|1108800| |6.|Loss of love and affection|200000|||| |7.|Loss of expectation of life|100000|||| |8.|Loss of estate|200000|15000||15000| |9.|Loss of consortium|200000|40000|80000|120000| |10.|Damage to clothing|5000|||| |11.|Extra nourishment|3000|||| |12.|Loss of marriage prospects of|200000|||| MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 ..8.. ||minor petitioner||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |13.|Loss of shock and anxiety|100000|||| |14.|Mental pain and trauma of bystander’s||20000||20000| ||Total|3268000 (limited to 2000000)|928500|396800|1325300| Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ₹3,96,800/- (Rupees three lakh ninety six thousand and six hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to MACA NO. 2369 OF 2019 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants at the earliest in accordance with law. Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-