High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-08-05Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation o...

Kaladevi @ Kala and others v. Pramod M. and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1322 of 2014

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; claimants granted additional compensation of Rs. 6,80,200/- with interest at 7.5%, and the Tribunal directed to proceed for deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount, while keeping other directions in the impugned award intact.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation of Rs.6,80,200 awarded to the claimants with 7.5% interest; liberty to approach Tribunal for deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount; other directions in the impugned award remain in force.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KALADEVI @ KALA
SOORYA PRAKASH (MINOR)
KAVYA GANESH (MINOR)
THIRUMALA VELU MUTHALIYAR
VELLAI AMMA

Respondents

PRAMOD.M.
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MUJEEB

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. K.S.SANTHI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court MACA appeal arises from an award of Rs. 8,30,000 granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, in a death-claim filed by the family of Ganesh (aged 28) who died in a road accident on 5 January 2009. The appellants include the widow and two minor children, also the parents and another guardian, who seek enhanced compensation beyond the tribunal’s award of Rs. 8.3 lakh. The tribunal relied on a claimed monthly income of Rs. 5,000 (in the absence of supporting evidence) and did not add future prospects. The court, applying Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa; Syed Sadiq) that similar-placed earners in 2004–2008 earned around Rs. 4,500–6,500 per month, holds that the deceased’s income could be Rs. 6,000 per month for 2009. In view of National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, with five dependants, 1/4 of income is allowed for personal expenses and 40% added for future prospects, with multiplier 17 (age 28). This yields Rs. 12,85,200 as dependency loss, while the tribunal’s Rs. 7,65,000 is inadequate. The court also awards conventional sums for pain and suffering (Rs. 10,000), loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses (Rs. 60,000 combined), and loss of love/affection (Rs. 1,10,000 total). Overall, the appeal is allowed, granting an additional Rs. 6,80,200 along with interest and further tribunal directions for deposit/disbursal of the enhanced amount.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that Ganesh (deceased) was a young breadwinner (28 years old) earning Rs.6,000 per month, evidenced through their pleadings and the family’s dependency on his income. The Tribunal’s fixation of Rs.5,000 per month, in the absence of corroborative evidence, understates the deceased’s earning capacity. Relying on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the appellants contend that Rs.6,000 per month is a more appropriate figure for 2009. Applying Pranay Sethi’s framework, with five dependants, 1/4 of income is attributable to personal expenses, and 40% should be added for future prospects, while a multiplier of 17 is applicable given the deceased’s age (28). Consequently, the dependency loss should be Rs.12,85,200, exceeding the Tribunal’s Rs.7,65,000. The appellants also seek conventional awards for pain and suffering (Rs.35,000), loss of consortium (Rs.60,000), loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs.60,000), and higher awards for love and affection (Rs.1,10,000). They urge that statutory precedents justify higher compensation and that the Tribunal’s determination requires correction to reflect a fair quantum.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal’s assessment was sound given the evidence available; income fixation at Rs.5,000 was reasonable in the absence of direct proof of Rs.6,000, and the multiplier and future-prospects adjustments should be cautious, consistent with established practice. They oppose heightened sums for loss of consortium, estate, funeral expenses, and love-and-affection, arguing that conventional awards were appropriately modest and that the tribunal’s order did not merit the substantial excess claimed by the appellants. They also challenge the extrapolation of later Supreme Court benchmarks to the facts here, urging restraint in applying modern ratios to a 2009 accident without robust corroboration. Overall, they seek to maintain the tribunal’s order, with only limited or no enhancement, and caution against over-compensation that could skew insurance liabilities.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Used to justify updating the deceased’s income to Rs.6,000 per month for 2009; supports the court’s income assessment.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	[(2014) 2 SCC 735]	Positive	Cited for comparable income evidence and dependency considerations in the context of similar accidents.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]	Positive	Supreme Court framework for personal expenses deduction and future-prospects addition; applied in calculating multiplicand.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others	(2018 ACJ 2782)	Positive	Used to fix appropriate awards for love and affection in the context of a 2009 accident.

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 Kaladevi @ Kala and others v. Pramod M. 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** **MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1322 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 195/2009 DATED 14-02-2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 KALADEVI @ KALA, W/O.LATE GANESAN, 33 A, MELE REDHA VEEDHI, CHINTHAMANI PULIYANGUDI.P.O., TAMIL NADU – 672855 (FORMERLY RESIDING AT 103 B-282, SINTHA MATHAR, PALLIVASAL STREET, KADAYANALOOR, P.O., TENKASI TALUK, TAMIL NADU – 627751)** **2 SOORYA PRAKASH (MINOR) AGED 6 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANESAN, 33 A, MELE REDHA VEEDHI, CHINTHAMANI PULIYANGUDI.P.O., TAMIL NADU – 672855.** **3 KAVYA GANESH, (MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS, D/O.LATE GANESAN, 33 A, MELE REDHA VEEDHI, CHINTHAMANI PULIYANGUDI.P.O., TAMIL NADU – 672855.** - **4 THIRUMALA VELU MUTHALIYAR, S/O.LATE SUBBAYYA MUTHALIYAR, 33 A, MELE REDHA VEEDHI, CHINTHAMANI PULIYANGUIDI.P.O., TAMIL NADU – 672855.** - **5 VELLAI AMMA, W/O. THIRUMALA VELU MUTHALIYAR 33 A, MELE REDHA VEEDHI, CHINTHAMANI PULIYANGUIDI.P.O.,** M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 2 ## **TAMIL NADU – 672855.** **(SINCE APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, 1ST APPELLANT IS FILING THIS APPEAL FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 AS THEIR MOTHER-NATURAL GUARDIAN)** **BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 PRAMOD.M.,** - **S/O.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, PRAMOD NIVAS, ELAVOOR, PALLIMON.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691576.** - **2 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 6TH FLOOR, VARINJAM LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI,** - **KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI, EAST MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, HDPC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM. PIN – 691 001.** - **3 MUJEEB,** - **S/O.LATE IBRAHIMKUTTY, VARUPURAYIDOM, KANNANALLOOR.P.O., THRIKKOVIL VATTOM, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 576.** **BY ADV.SMT. K.S.SANTHI** **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.1322 of 2014 3 ## **M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------** ## **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 Ganesan aged 28 years died on 06.01.2009 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident took place on 05.01.2009. It is stated in the claim petition that he was engaged in the sale of bakery items. His parents, wife and two minor children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- by way of M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 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.6,000/- per month, in the 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. Further, the Tribunal has arrived at the multiplicand for the said purpose without adding a portion of the income towards future prospects. 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.** M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 5 **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, 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 2009, 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 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 28, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '17'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.12,85,200/-(Rs.6,000x12x3/4x140/100x17). As the Tribunal M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 6 has granted only a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,20,200/-. 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. No amount has been granted under this head to the claimants. The claimants are therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- 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 2009, 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 only a sum of Rs.20,000/- under those three heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 7 sum of Rs.40,000/- under those heads. Coming 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 2009, 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.30,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by way of additional compensation. Thus, the total additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.6,80,200/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.6,80,200/- 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 M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2014 8 Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** Mn **JUDGE**