High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-18Appeal allowed; no order as to costs.

K.G. Sebastian and others v. E.K. Najeeb and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2281 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2022-11-18
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.8,33,400 awarded. The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 719 days of delay in filing the appeal) in the proportion 40:40:10:10, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund, and in terms of Circular No.3 of 2019 (and clarified OM No. D1/62475/2016).
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.G. Sebastian
Jasmin Sebastian
Jessy
Godfrey

Respondents

E.K. Najeeb
A. Thaha
National Insurance Co. Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S.V. Rajan
• Smt. M. Manju
• Sri K.R. Ranjith
• Sri R. Sudhish
• Sri R. Santosh, Varkala
• Smt. S. Uma

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.G. Ganappan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a challenge by the legal heirs of Godwin, who died in a motor-vehicle accident on 30.07.2006 when his motorcycle was dashed by a Toyota Qualis on the Ithikkara bridge. The vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent, driven rashly by the 2nd respondent, with insurance by the 3rd respondent; liability and the policy are not in dispute. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OPMV 55/2008, awarded Rs. 3,44,000 as compensation under Section 166. The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred by underestimating the deceased’s income and applying a too-low multiplier of 9, especially since the deceased was a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering with professional prospects. Relying on Ramchandrappa and Pranay Sethi, the court fixes a higher notional income of Rs.7,000 per month, with 40% future prospects, resulting in Rs.9,800 monthly, and after a 50% personal expense deduction, Rs.4,900 remains for dependency. Using a multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency becomes Rs.10,58,400; Rs.7,34,400 more is claimed for enhanced dependency compensation. For funeral and estate losses, Rs.30,000 (Rs.15,000 each) is awarded instead of Rs.10,000; loss of love and affection is upgraded from Rs.10,000 to Rs.88,000 (Rs.44,000 each for the parents, after adjusting for prior payments); Rs.1,000 transportation is added. The Court awards enhanced total compensation of Rs.8,33,400 and directs deposit by the insurer with interest, in the specified proportions, within two months, with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951)
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others (AIR 2017 SC 5157)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs.6,000 per month for the deceased, a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering, and in applying a multiplier of 9. They rely on Ramchandrappa to argue higher notional income and on Pranay Sethi for enhanced heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses. They demonstrate the deceased’s professional qualifications and potential earnings, asserting a notional income of Rs.7,000 with 40% future prospects, leading to Rs.9,800 monthly income. After 50% personal expenses deduction, Rs.4,900 remains for dependency. With a multiplier of 18, the calculation yields Rs.10,58,400 for dependency and a total enhanced compensation of Rs.8,33,400; they also claim Rs.30,000 for loss of estate and funeral, Rs.88,000 for loss of love and affection, and Rs.1,000 for transportation, summing to an enhanced award. The appeal seeks full compensation amplification and equitable distribution with interest.

Contentions of Respondents

null

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used to justify higher notional income for a professionally qualified deceased; supports applying higher notional income and future prospects.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	AIR 2017 SC 5157	Positive	Used to justify enhanced head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and related allowances; supports higher awards and structured 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 K.G. Sebastian and others v. E.K. Najeeb 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/27TH KARTHIKA, 1944 MACA NO. 2281 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 55/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:** 1 K.G.SEBASTIAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O.GEORGE, DHANYA PUTHENVILA, THEKKUMKARA,PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING ATKALPAKASSERY VEEDU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 JASMIN SEBASTIAN AGED 53 YEARS W/O.K.G.SEBASTIAN, DHANYA PUTHENVILA,THEKKUMKARA, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. 3 JESSY AGED 31 YEARS D/O.K.G.SEBASTIAN, DHANYA PUTHENVILA,THKKUMKARA, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. 4 GODFREY AGED 30 YEARS S/O.K.G.SEBASTIAN, DHANYA PUTHENVILA,THEKKUMKARA, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.RAJAN SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.R.SANTHOSH VARKALA SMT.S.UMA ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 E.K.NAJEEB S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NAJEEB BUILDING, MANANAKKU,PERUMKULAM, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM - 695 101. **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **2** 2 A.THAHA S/O.ABDUL BARI, KUNNIL VEEDU, CHALAKKONAM KEEZHATTIL VILLAGE, PERUMKULAM P.O., ATTINGAL,TRIVANDRUM - 695 102. 3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PARAMESWARAN PILLAI BHAVAN, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADV SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.11.2022, THE COURT ON 18.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **3** ## **SOPHY THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------ ## MACA No.2281 of 2013 ------------------------------------ ## Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of Sri.Godwin, aged 23 years, who died in a motor accident occurred on 30.07.2006, challenging inadequacy of the compensation awarded in OP(MV) No.55 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. 2. On 30.07.2006 at 5.15 p.m, Sri.Godwin was riding a motorcycle through Ithikkara bridge carrying his friend in the pillion seat and then, KL-02/M-3012 Toyota Qualis van driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle and he sustained fatal injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries. 3. 1[st] respondent is the owner, 2[nd] respondent is the driver and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The accident as well as the policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **4** 4. The claimants, who are the parents and siblings of the deceased Godwin, approached the Tribunal with a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,44,000/- only, and that is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked from the side of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award. 7. The appellants/claimants are mainly challenging the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, fixing notional income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/-. Further, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was only 9, though the deceased was a 23 year old man. The proper multiplier applicable is 18. The deceased was a qualified Technician and he was working in ICICI Bank, earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. So, the notional income fixed @ Rs.6,000/- is not at all justifiable. The deceased was a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering and he was having better prospects in future. **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **5** 8. Learned Tribunal found that, no salary certificate was produced by the appellants/claimants to prove the salary or to show that, the deceased was working with ICICI Bank. Ext.A1 showed only one deposit of Rs.15,000/- and it was found not acceptable as his monthly salary. But, there is no doubt with respect to the fact that, the deceased was a qualified Technician, based on Exts.A4, A5 and A12 documents. As a professionally qualified person, especially a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering, his notional income fixed @ Rs.6,000/- per month is not at all justifiable. Even going by the decision **Ramchandrappa** vs. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** (AIR 2011 SC 2951), a casual labourer in the year 2006 was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.5,500/-. Since the deceased was a qualified Automobile Engineering Diploma holder, definitely, he was eligible to get his notional income fixed more than that. So, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. Since he was below 40 years and self employed, he was eligible to get 40% enhancement towards future prospects. So, his monthly income could be fixed at Rs.9,800/-. Since he was a bachelor, **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **6** 50% deduction is to be made towards personal expenses. So, the balance monthly income is Rs.4,900/-. The multiplier applicable is 18. So, the compensation for loss of dependency could be assessed as Rs.10,58,400/- (4900x12x18). The appellants were already paid Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of dependency. So, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.7,34,400/- towards enhanced compensation for loss of dependency. 9. For funeral expenses and loss of estate, the appellants/claimants were given only Rs.5,000/- each. As per the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd.** vs. **Pranay Sethi and Others** (AIR 2017 SC 5157), they are eligible to get Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. So, they are eligible to get the difference of Rs.10,000/- each under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses, amounting to Rs.20,000/- in total. 10. Towards loss of love and affection, only Rs.10,000/was awarded by the Tribunal. Appellants 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, are eligible to get Rs.44,000/- each for loss of consortium amounting to Rs.88,000/- in total. After deducting Rs.10,000/- already paid, they are eligible to get the balance **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **7** Rs.78,000/- as enhanced compensation for loss of consortium. 11. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards transportation expenses. Rs.1,000/- seems to be reasonable and this Court is inclined to award that amount, as transportation expenses. 12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and it needs no interference. |**Head of claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the Tribunal**|**Amount** **awarded in** **appeal**|**Difference to** **be drawn as** **enhanced** **compensation**| |---|---|---|---| |Compensation for loss of dependency|Rs.3,24,000/-|Rs.10,58,400/-|7,34,400/-| |Loss of estate and funeral expenses|Rs.10,000/- (5000x2)|Rs.30,000/- (15000x2)|Rs.20,000/-| |Loss of love and affection|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.88,000/- (44000x2)|Rs.78,000/-| |Transportation expenses|-|Rs.1,000/-|Rs.1,000/-| |**Total**|**Rs.3,44,000/-**|**Rs.11,77,400/-**|**Rs.8,33,400/-**| 13. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.8,33,400/- (734400+20000+ 78000+1000). The 3[rd] respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellants **MACA No.2281 of 2013** **8** with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 719 days of delay in filing the appeal), in the proportion 40:40:10:10 , within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** smp