High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-17Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,...

K.S. Prabha, Manu Mohan, Anu Mohan and Devaki Amma v. G. Shivakumar and The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji Monday
Judgment Date: 2022-10-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation to Rs.4,59,875; all other Tribunal findings confirmed; Insurance Company to pay interest on awarded and enhanced amounts at 8% from the petition date; bank details to be provided for NEFT/RTGS transfer within one month from certified copy; if bank details not provided, no interest shall accrue on enhanced amounts after the specified period; otherwise, interest as directed in the impugned award remains.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,59,875; rest of Tribunal findings affirmed; insurer to pay interest on enhanced amount at 8% from date of petition; NEFT/RTGS deposit upon bank details; set-off for any prior payments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S. Prabha
Manu Mohan
Anu Mohan
Devaki Amma

Respondents

G. Shivakumar
The Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Anchal C. Vijayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment concerns MACA No. 3265 of 2014, an appeal by four legal heirs of Mohanan Pillai challenging an MACT, Punalur award of Rs.8,51,000 for a road-accident death. The deceased, an electrician in Bangalore, died after a collision on 12 April 2007 involving a car and a lorry. The Tribunal held the carrier liable and awarded compensation under conventional heads with 9% interest from the petition date. The appellants contend the Tribunal erred in income assessment (fixing Rs.5,000 monthly instead of Ext. A10 showing Rs.7,500), and in applying 30% future prospects rather than 25% per Pranay Sethi; they also contest the 1/3 deduction for personal expenses and generation of compensation across heads given four dependents (two of them adults). The High Court re-evaluates: it adopts Rs.7,500 as monthly income (Ext. A10), applies 25% future prospects, and assumes four dependents with a 1/4 personal deduction. Loss of dependency is recalculated to Rs.10,96,875; loss of estate to Rs.16,500; loss of consortium to Rs.1,76,000; eliminates the Rs.40,000 loss of love and affection and reduces funeral expenses to Rs.16,500. The enhanced total is Rs.13,05,875, yielding an enhanced amount of Rs.4,59,875 in favour of the appellants. Interest on enhanced amounts is at 8% from the petition date; NEFT/RTGS transfer is ordered upon provision of bank details.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contended that Ext. A10 proves the deceased's income at Rs. 7,500 per month; the Tribunal erred in fixing Rs. 5,000 and in applying 30% future prospects; with four dependents, 1/4 deduction for personal expenses must be made; Ext. A10 should be accepted as proof of salary. They urged that loss of dependency, loss of estate, and loss of consortium be accordingly enhanced and that funeral expenses be limited to the standard of Rs. 15,000 with 10% escalation.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that the Tribunal rightly fixed income at Rs.5,000 in absence of positive evidence beyond Ext. A10; future prospects were 30%, but Pranay Sethi permits 25%; the assessment for funeral expenses and other heads should be maintained unless override by jurisprudence; challenged the higher loss amounts.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Used to cap future prospects at 25% in accordance with Pranay Sethi.
R Valli and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited	(2022) 5 SCC 107	Distinguished	Court did not adopt the 10% escalation approach from this decision; preferred later authorities.
N Jayasree & others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.	2021 (6) KHC 163	Positive	Apex Court/High Court guidance to apply 10% escalation irrespective of the accident date.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Allias Chuhru Ram & Others	(2018) 18 SCC 130	Positive	Used to fix loss of consortium head at Rs.40,000 with escalation.
Meera P.O. And another v. Ananda P Naik and others	2022(1) KHC 591	Mentioned Only	Referenced in discussion; supports 10% increase but not a decisive basis.
Jyothis. S v. Somasekharan Pillai	2022(5) KLT 866	Mentioned Only	Mentions in discussion on 10% increase; not the basis for final order.
Pranay Sethi	SC	Positive	Foundational authority for the 25% future prospects standard used in calculation.

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.S. Prabha, Manu Mohan, Anu Mohan and Devaki Amma v. G. Shivakumar and The Manager, Reliance General 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 BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944 MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** **OPMV 110/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANT/S:** 1 K.S.PRABHA W/O. LATE MOHANAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKE CHARUVILA VEEDU, AKAMON, AYOOR.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 MANU MOHAN S/O. LATE MOHANAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKE CHARUVILA VEEDU, AKAMON, AYOOR.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3 ANU MOHAN S/O. LATE MOHANAN PILLAI,KIZHAKKE CHARUVILA VEEDU, AKAMON, AYOOR.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4 DEVAKI AMMA W/O. NEELAKANDA PILLAI, REMA MANDIRAM, EDAMULAKKAL.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 G.SHIVAKUMAR NO. 996, 3A CROSS, H. MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, R.B.R. LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002. 2 THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MANANDI PLAZA, NO.3, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002. **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -2- ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT. LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN -R THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -3- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 17[th] day of October 2022) Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in O.P.(M.V.) No.110 of 2010 on the files of the MACT, Punalur, are the appellants herein. They are the legal heirs of one Mohanan Pillai, who died in a road accident. 2. On 12.4.2007, the deceased was travelling with his friends on their way to Ayoor in a car bearing registration No.KA-53/2062 from Bangalore. When the car reached Kovai, it hit against a lorry bearing registration No.TN 37AT/7818, which was proceeding in the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, deceased Mohanan sustained serious injuries and though he was taken to General Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries while **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** undergoing treatment. The compensation is claimed on the ground that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the lorry driver and deceased Biju Thomas, who was the driver of the car. An amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. The 2[nd] respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the absolute negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The driver of the car was driving the car with ample care and caution. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were also disputed. The compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The Tribunal relying on the oral evidence of PW1 **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** and Exts.A1 to A10, awarded a compensation of Rs.8,51,000/- with 9% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded on various heads, this appeal is filed. 5. Heard. 6. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was an electrician in Southern Electrical Manufacturers, Bangalore and was earning an income of Rs.7,500/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- even though Ext.A10 salary certificate was produced and the person who issued the same was examined as PW1. He also contends that the Tribunal ought not have deducted 1/3[rd] of the income as personal and living expenses, since at the **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -6- time of accident the dependents were 4 in number. The Tribunal went wrong in assuming that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were aged 22 and 21 years respectively and major sons. The compensation granted under various heads were also not just and reasonable and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. The counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/Insurance company submits that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the income at Rs.5,000/- since there was no positive evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased other than Ext.A10. She also submits that 30% was taken as future prospects. But going by the decision reported in **National Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** , only 25% can be awarded towards future **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** prospects. The Tribunal also went wrong in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/towards loss of love and affection. 8. According to the appellants the deceased was an electrician working in Bangalore and Ext.A10 was produced and PW1 was examined to prove the same. As Ext.A10 is properly proved, the Tribunal is not justified in stating that in the absence of any positive evidence to prove the salary of the deceased, Ext.A10 cannot be taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Hence, I am taking the monthly salary of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency as Rs.7,500/- based on Ext.A10 as PW1 was examined to prove it. 25% of the salary has to be added towards future prospects instead of 30%. So the monthly **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -8- income would come to Rs.7,500 + 25% = Rs.9,375/-. Though appellant Nos.2 and 3 are aged 22 and 21 it cannot be said that they are not the dependents of the deceased. Since they have no other source of income, I am inclined to take total dependents as 4 and thus, 1/4[th] of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus the compensation for loss of dependency can be worked out as Rs.9,375x12x13x3/4 = Rs.10,96,875/-. 9. Towards loss of estate only Rs.5,000/- was awarded. Going by the decision reported in Relying on the decision mentioned in _**Pranay Sethi**_ **(supra)** , the minimum amount of compensation for loss of estate that could be awarded is Rs.15,000 + 10% escalation for three years which comes to Rs.16,500/-. **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** 10. The counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in **R Valli and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited [(2022) 5 SCC 107],** and contended that the said addition of 10% shall not be considered while calculating funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium as the addition can be considered only for accidents which happened after the decision in **Pranay Sethi (supra).** 11. The counsel for the appellants relied on the decision reported in **N Jayasree & others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (6) KHC 163],** wherein the apex court in paragraph 32 held as follows: 32. In Pranay Sethi, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -10- under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It was held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. It was held thus: 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 12. Moreover, this court had occasion to consider this argument in the decisions reported in **Meera P.O. And another v. Ananda P Naik and others [2022(1) KHC 591]** and **Jyothis. S v. Somasekharan Pillai [2022(5) KLT 866]** . The counsel for the appellants submitted that 10% increase has to be given irrespective of the fact that whether the accident happened before 2017 or after 2017. Hence I concur with the decision of the Apex Court in **N Jayasree (supra)** mentioned above. Hence, loss of estate can be reworked as Rs.15,000 + 10% = 16,500/-. 13. As far as loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -11- Relying on the decision reported in **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Allias Chuhru Ram & Others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]** the loss of consortium to be paid is Rs.40,000/-. They are also entitled to 10% increase every three years as per the decision reported in _**Pranay Sethi**_ (supra) and thus, the 10% increase would come to Rs.44,000 x 4, i.e., Rs.1,76,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/towards loss of love and affection. When loss of consortium is awarded, the claimants are not entitled to loss of love and affection and hence the award of Rs.40,000/fixed by the Tribunal under loss of love and affection, is set aside. 15. The maximum amount that can be awarded under the head funeral expenses is Rs.15,000+10% escalation for three years which come to Rs.16,500/-, as per the decision reported in **Pranay Sethi (supra)** , the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- which has to be brought down to Rs.16,500/-. **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -12- Accordingly, the following enhancements/deductions are made to the Award passed by the Tribunal: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded by<br>Tribunal (Rs.)|Amt. Enhanced in<br>appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|6,76,000|10,96,875| |2|Loss of estate|5,000|16,500| |3|Loss of consortium|1,00,000|1,76,000| |6|Loss of love and affection|40,000|0| |7|Funeral expenses|25,000|16,500| |||8,46,000|13,05,875| ||Amount enhanced =13,05,875-846000=Rs.4,59,875/-||| In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,59,875/- (Rupees four lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred and seventy five only). All other finding entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in **MACA NO. 3265 OF 2014** -13- the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest shall run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. sd ## **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_