Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation; payment ...

KUMARAN and others v. MYMOONA and ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 1612 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
  • K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date
2016-09-27
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed in part. The notional income adopted for calculation is ₹7,800 per month (₹6,000 plus 30% prospects) with a multiplier of 17, resulting in a higher loss of dependency than the Tribunal’s award. Funeral expenses are increased to ₹25,000; compensation for shock and anxiety is not sustained. An additional ₹1,000 is added for clothing. In total, the court awards an additional ₹1,74,600 as enhanced compensation, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition, to be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. within two months from receipt of the judgment, and there will be no order as to costs. The enhanced amount is to be shared in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; payment within two months; no costs; enhanced amount to be shared per Tribunal's proportions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • 1. KUMARAN F/O.LATE KRISHNA KUMAR @ KRISHNANKUTTY KARIYANGATTIL HOUSE ANANTHAPURAM DESOM, VILLAGE & P.O MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
  • 2. SULOCHANA, W/O.KUMARAN
  • 3. SUJITHA, D/O.KUMARAN
  • 4. RAMDAS, S/O.KUMARAN

Respondents

  • Mymoona w/o Ziyad, Mattummel House, Puthiya‑ra P.O., Kozhikode‑673004
  • The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Mundakayam, Kottayam‑686001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.P.V.BABY
  • • Sri.A.N.SANTHOSH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.K.B.RAMANAND
  • • Sri.M.A.GEORGE

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No.1612 of 2016) arising from an award in MACT, Irinjalakuda (OPMV No.112 of 2011) concerning a fatal motor-vehicle accident dated 28-11-2010. The appellants, parents and siblings of a 27-year-old bachelor who was a two-wheeler mechanic, sought higher compensation than the ₹7,89,725 awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal used a notional monthly income of ₹4,000 for the deceased. The appellants relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 to contend that the deceased’s earning capacity should be assessed at a higher figure, and that prospects (30%) should be incorporated. The insurer defended the Tribunal’s quantum as just, arguing lack of documentary evidence to prove a higher income and that the awarded heads (including funeral expenses and love and affection) were appropriately calculated. The Kerala High Court disposed of the appeal at admission, enhancing the quantum by correcting several heads: it adopted ₹7,800 per month as income (₹6,000 with 30% prospects), multiplier 17, increased loss of dependency; revised funeral expenses to ₹25,000; eliminated compensation for shock and anxiety; added ₹1,000 for clothing; and awarded an additional ₹1,74,600 with 8% interest, to be paid within two months, with no costs. The enhanced amount is to be shared as per Tribunal proportions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contend that the deceased was a 27-year-old motor mechanic earning about ₹6,000 per month. The MACT used ₹4,000 as notional income; they rely on Ramachandrappa to justify a higher notional income and include future prospects (30%). They urge adoption of ₹7,800 per month for calculation, with a 17-year multiplier, resulting in a higher loss of dependency. They seek enhanced compensation on loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, and contest the Tribunal’s award of shock and anxiety as double counting. Documentary evidence of earnings is argued to be lacking, but the Court is urged to adopt the higher notional income and revise heads accordingly; they seek fairer compensation and interest on the enhanced amount.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that the Tribunal awarded just compensation and interference is unwarranted. They argue there is no documentary proof of ₹6,000 monthly earnings, and the notional income of ₹4,000 is proper. They contend the Tribunal’s allowance for funeral expenses and love-and-affection is in order, and the shock-and-anxiety head should not be eliminated without cause. Overall, the insurer argues against disturbing the quantum in the absence of strong documentary corroboration for the higher income claimed by the appellants.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCited to justify higher notional income and application of prospective prospects for the deceased.

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 KUMARAN and others v. MYMOONA and ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY 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 MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938 MACA.No. 1612 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 112/2011 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 28-12-2015 APPELLANT(S):PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. KUMARAN F/O.LATE KRISHNA KUMAR @ KRISHNANKUTTY KARIYANGATTIL HOUSE ANANTHAPURAM DESOM, VILLAGE & P.O MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. SULOCHANA, W/O.KUMARAN - -DO- -DO- 3. SUJITHA, D/O.KUMARAN - -DO- -DO- 4. RAMDAS, S/O.KUMARAN - -DO- -DO- BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH ## RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 -------------------------------------------- - 1.MYMOONA W/O.ZIYAD MATTUMMEL HOUSE PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673004 - 2.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM-686001 R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **========================== M.A.C.A. No.1612 OF 2016** **==========================** Dated this the 27[th] day of September, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is preferred against the award dated 28.12.2015 made in O.P.(MV).No.112 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. 2.When this appeal came up for admission, the learned counsel Sri.P.V.Baby, appearing for the appellants, submitted before us that, the appellants are the parents and siblings of the deceased who was a bachelor who sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.11.2010 and succumbed to the injuries. The appellants claimed that the deceased was a two wheeler machanic who was **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 2 earning more than `6,000/- per month. It is the submission that the Tribunal, against a claim of `10,00,000/-, awarded only an amount of `7,89,725/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal preferred. 3.The main grievance of the appellants is that even though the accident occurred in the year 2010, the Tribunal considered only a notional income of `4,000/-. It is the submission of the learned counsel that even in the case of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a notional income of `4,500/- [ **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236]** whereas in this case, the accident occurred in the year 2010 and the positive case of the appellants is that the deceased is a motor mechanic. It is also the submission that the deceased was a young man aged only 27 years. The compensation awarded on the head of loss of love and affection is also on a lower side. **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 3 4.The learned counsel for the insurance company is also present. We heard Sri.K.B.Ramanand. The learned counsel submitted before us that, here is a case where just compensation was awarded by the Tribunal and an interference by this Court is not warranted. It is also the submission that even though the claim of the appellants is that the deceased was a motor mechanic no oral or by profession, documentary evidence adduced to substantiate their claim. Under such circumstances, no illegality committed by the Tribunal in taking the notional income of `4,000/- per month, for calculation purpose. The learned counsel also pointed out that, in this case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of `25,000/- towards shock and anxiety. But at the very same time, the Tribunal awarded `75,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, compensation is awarded on the very same count, twice. 5.After hearing the learned counsel and also after going through **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 4 the schedule attached to the award, we felt that this appeal can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself. 6.Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of `10,000/-. But at the very same time, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal should not have awarded `25,000/- towards shock and anxiety. After considering all aspects, the amount awarded towards shock and anxiety by the Tribunal has to be deducted from the further assessment made by this Court. For calculation of compensation towards 'loss of dependency', the Tribunal adopted an income of `4,000/- per month. In this case, the accident occurred in the year 2010. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, in the case of a coolie, who met with an accident in the year 2004, the Apex Court considered a monthly income of `4,500/-. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was earning `6,000/- per month. We feel that the said amount can be adopted, for calculation purpose. **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 5 Over and above the said amount, considering the prospects of the deceased, 30% of the income also has to be added. Thus, the monthly income that can be taken for calculation purpose will be `7,800/-. The multiplier available will be 17. Thus, the amount available towards the head of loss of dependency will be `7,95,600/-. The Tribunal awarded `6,12,000/- on the said head. Thus, the additional amount available on this head will be `1,83,600/-. Towards funeral expenses, only a sum of `10,000/- is seen awarded. The Tribunal should have granted at least `25,000/- on the said head. We award an additional sum of `15,000/- on the head of funeral expenses. We have already found that the Tribunal should not have awarded compensation on the head of shock and anxiety. Thus, `25,000/- has to be deducted from `1,83,600/- and `15,000/- granted towards funeral expenses has to be added. In effect, the amount available will be `1,73,600/-. Apart from the same, no amount is seen awarded towards damage to clothing. A sum of `1,000/- is awarded on the said head. Thus, the appellants will be entitled for an additional **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 6 compensation of `1,74,600/-. It is awarded. The said amount will bear interest @ 8% from the date of the petition till realisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. The additional compensation shall be shared in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 7 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.1612/2016** 8 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**