High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2014-01-15Appeal disposed of with enhanced compensation; ...

KAVALAN and others v. SURESH K.N, THIR M.KALIAPPAN and The UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1726 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-01-15
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court held that the monthly income should remain Rs.4,000, but the multiplier must be 18 instead of 5. It ruled that only parents can be considered dependants, justifying a 50% deduction for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma. Recalculating under these principles, loss of dependency amounts to Rs.4,32,000; the funeral expenses were increased to Rs.10,000; pain and suffering to Rs.15,000; and love and affection to Rs.10,000. The court ordered an additional compensation of Rs.2,92,000 over the tribunal’s award, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, and directed deposit by the 3rd respondent within two months. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications in the award.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of with enhanced compensation; updated order directing deposit within two months; 9% interest on the enhanced amount from petition date.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KAVALAN, S/O.KAVALAN
AYYAMMA, W/O.KAVALAN
SUBRAMANI A.K, S/O.KAVALAN
SATHI A.K, D/O.KAVALAN
SHEEJA A.K, D/O.KAVALAN
SAJI A.K, S/O.KAVALAN
RAJU A.K, S/O.KAVALAN
MANIKANDAN A.K, S/O.KAVALAN

Respondents

SURESH K.N, S/O.NAGARAJAN, KALIYARA HOUSE, METHALA P.O., AZHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683545
THIR M.KALIAPPAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, GR 57 A, RASA GOUNDER, STREET PATHAMPALAYAM, PERUNDURAI DISTRICT, SELAM, TAMIL NADU-636001
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2/117, PRS ROAD, CHENNIMALARI, ERODE - 636 201

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. MATHEWS K.PHILIP
• SMT.T.MANASY

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
• SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from O.P(M.V) No.1155/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum, in which the claimants (parents and siblings of Anoop, a 20-year-old deceased) sought compensation for death caused by negligent driving of a lorry owned by respondents and insured by the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal held negligence and awarded compensation across heads: loss of dependency Rs.1,60,000; transportation Rs.2,000; treatment Rs.22,621; funeral Rs.5,000; pain and sufferings Rs.10,000; love and affection Rs.15,000; total Rs.2,14,621, with other heads disallowed. The appellants challenged the quantum, arguing that the deceased’s income was higher than recognized (Ext. A13 shows Rs.7,000/month, though the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,000/month), that the multiplier of 5 was incorrect, and that funeral and pain-and-suffering awards were too low; they also argued that the siblings were dependants. The Insurance Company contended that only the parents could be dependants since the siblings were elder, necessitating a 50% deduction for personal expenses. The Kerala High Court, after detailed scrutiny, concluded that the income should remain Rs.4,000/month but the multiplier must be 18 (not 5). It held that only parents could be dependants, requiring 50% deduction for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma. It recalculated loss of dependency to Rs.4,32,000 and enhanced funeral to Rs.10,000, pain and suffering to Rs.15,000, and love and affection to Rs.10,000, granting an additional Rs.2,92,000 with 9% interest. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications, directing deposit by the 3rd respondent within two months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (SC) — 50% deduction for personal expenses when dependants are limited to parents; standard multiplier principles.
Amrit Banu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2002 ACJ 2002) — guidance on multiplier to be used for loss of dependency.
Annakutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013(4)KLT160) — Kerala Court’s adherence to Amrit Banu Shali

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.4,000 despite Ext. A13 suggesting Rs.7,000 and in applying a multiplier of 5; they urge that the Supreme Court and this Court require a higher multiplier (18) and that the dependants only include the parents for the purpose of dependency, with 50% deduction for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma. They assert that the compensation under heads such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and love & affection should be recalculated to reflect true losses, including enhanced funeral expense and a larger sum for pain and suffering and love and affection. The claimants seek a higher overall compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and adjusting ancillary heads, with interest and timely deposit by the insurer.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argues that the dependants are limited to the parents, given that the deceased’s siblings were elder, thus mandating 50% deduction for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma. It contends that the Tribunal’s awards were just and reasonable and that any enhancement would be unwarranted. The defense emphasizes adherence to established heads of compensation and seeks to uphold the Tribunal’s quantum, with potential adjustments only if clear errors are shown in the assessment of income or multiplier.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Amrit Banu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others	2002 ACJ 2002	Positive	Court relied on Amrit Banu Shali to adopt a higher multiplier (18) instead of the Tribunal’s 5.
Annakutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others	2013(4)KLT160	Positive	Noted as having been followed by this Court in line with Amrit Banu Shali.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another	2010(2)KLT802 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify 50% deduction for personal expenses since only parents were dependants.

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 KAVALAN and others v. SURESH K.N, THIR M.KALIAPPAN and The UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 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 S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/25TH POUSHA, 1935** ## **MACA.No. 1726 of 2011 ( )** **-------------------------OPMV.1155/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ......** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **------------------------------------------** **1. KAVALAN, S/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2. AYYAMMA, W/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **3. SUBRAMANI A.K, S/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **4. SATHI A.K, D/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **5. SHEEJA A.K, D/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **6. SAJI A.K,S/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **7. RAJU A.K, S/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **MACA.No. 1726 of 2011** **8. MANIKANDAN A.K, S/O.KAVALAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, VENNOORPADOM, MELADOOR P.O., ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SMT.T.MANASY.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. SURESH K.N, S/O.NAGARAJAN, KALIYARA HOUSE, METHALA P.O., AZHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 545.** **2. THIR M.KALIAPPAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, GR 57 A, RASA GOUNDER, STREET PATHAMPALAYAM, PERUNDURAI DISTRICT, SELAM, TAMIL NADU-636 001.** **3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2/117, PRS ROAD, CHENNIMALARI, ERODE - 636 201.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ =========================== M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 ==================== Dated this the 15[th] day of January, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## S.Siri Jagan, J. The claimants in O.P(M.V) No. 1155/2009 before the Motors Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum, are the appellants herein. They are the parents and siblings of deceased Anoop, who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle driven and owned by respondents by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. They filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the death of Anoop. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows: M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 **2** |**_Heads_**|**_Amount_**<br>**_claimed_**|**_Amount_**<br>**_awarded_**| |---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|600000|160000| |Transportation expenses|3000|2000| |Treatment expenses|25000|22621| |Funeral expenses|25000|5000| |Compensation forpain and sufferings|75000|10000| |Compensation for loss of love and affection|100000|15000| |Total||214621| |Other claims disallowed||| Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The accident was on 15.2.2009. Anoop died two days after the accident on 17.02.2009. He was 20 years of age at that time. He was a lorry cleaner by profession. The appellants' claim that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month, in support of which they have produced Ext. A13 certificate from the employer. But the Tribunal did not accept the same and fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/-, which is on the lower side is the first contention raised by the appellants. The second M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 **3** contention is that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier as '5' based on the average age of the parents, which is against the decision of the Supreme Court in **Amrit Banu Shali vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And others [2002 ACJ 2002]** which was followed by this Court in **Annakutty vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others [2013(4)KLT160].** It is further contended that the funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- is on the lower side. The appellants point out that the deceased died two days after the accident and therefore the compensation for pain and sufferings of the deceased awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. Lastly, it is submitted that the compensation for love and affection of the parents and the siblings awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that since the siblings are elder major brothers and sisters of the deceased, only the parents can be considered as dependants, in which case, 50% has to be deducted for the personal expenses of the M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 **4** deceased as per the decision in **Sarla verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2010(2) KLT 802** **(SC)].** The counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads. 4. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Regarding the income of the deceased, although the appellants have produced a certificate from an alleged employer as Ext. A13, the same has not been properly proved and therefore the Tribunal rightly refused to rely on the same, for fixing the monthly income of the deceased. Considering the status of the deceased in life, we are of opinion that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/-. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court, in decisions relied on quoted above, the multiplier to be adopted is '18' and not '5' as adopted by M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 **5** the Tribunal. But at the same time, as argued by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the major elder siblings cannot be considered as dependants of the deceased in which case, only the parents of the deceased can be considered as his dependants. Consequently, 50% has to be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased as per the decision of the Supreme Court in **Sarla** **verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)].** If the compensation for loss of dependency is re-calculated on the basis of these inputs, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.4,32,000/- (4,000 X 12 X 18 / 2) instead of Rs. 1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head. The difference is Rs. 2,72,000/-. We are inclined to enhance the funeral expenses to Rs. 10,000/from Rs. 5,000/-. Likewise, since the deceased died two days after the accident, we are inclined to enhance the compensation for pain and sufferings of the deceased to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 10,000/-. Since the parents as well as the siblings lost the love and affection of the youngest member M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 **6** of their family, we are inclined to award Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for love and affection. We are not inclined to enhance the compensation under the other heads. 6. Consequently the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- over and above what has been awarded by Tribunal. This amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit this amount also within 2 months. With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of. **Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE,** // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE SB M.A.C.A No. 1726 of 2011 **7**