Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Kumari (W/o Venugopalan) and Others v. Ajith Kumar and Shaju and The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1981 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2019-08-19
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is allowed. The claimants are awarded an additional Rs. 5,47,125/- as compensation, with interest on the additional amount at 7.5% per annum. All other directions in the impugned award remain in force, and the parties may approach the Tribunal for deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; interlocutory applications closed; directions for deposit/disbursal of enhanced amount reserved for Tribunal's orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Kumari

Respondents

  • Ajith Kumar
  • Shaju
  • The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T. C. Suresh Menon

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Joe Kalliath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1981 of 2010) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P. (MV) 1307/2004 regarding the death of Venugopalan, aged around 48, on 05.05.2004. The claimants, including the wife and two minor children of the deceased and the father, prayed for higher compensation than the Tribunal granted (Rs. 3,01,000). The High Court, noting lack of evidence of income, re-assessed the deceased’s monthly income to Rs. 4,500 in light of Ramachandrappa (2011) and applied Pranay Sethi guidelines for future prospects and deductions for dependants (four dependants, 25% for future prospects, multiplier 13). The Court found that the Tribunal under-compensated across several heads. It recalculated and held the claimants were entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,47,125, along with 7.5% interest on this additional amount. The tribunal’s other directions were to stand, and all interlocutory applications in the appeal were closed. The final outcome allowed the appeal, enhancing the total compensation payable to the claimants, with a directive to deposit and disburse the enhanced amount.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236 – income determination for dependency calculation.
  • National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC) – future prospects, personal expenses deduction, and multiplier approach in compensation for death.
  • Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others (2018 ACJ 2782) – awards for loss of love and affection.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in calculating the deceased's income and failed to apply the correct framework for compensation under the post-Pranay guidelines, including future prospects and dependency deductions. They relied on Ramachandrappa to set the monthly income at Rs. 4,500 for similarly placed deceased in 2004. They argued for enhanced compensation across heads such as loss of dependency, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and love and affection, and they sought appropriate amounts as per Pranay Sethi and Magma guidelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents' detailed submissions are not explicitly quoted in the text. The judgment indicates hearing of arguments by counsel and proceeds to apply the law and evidence, resulting in the enhancement of compensation. The respondents' position effectively becomes a part of the appellate arguments that the Tribunal's award should be augmented per the controlling precedents.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveThe court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 4,500 in 2004 for similar positions, forming the basis for higher dependency compensation.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]PositiveThe court applies Pranay Sethi guidelines for future prospects and the percentage deduction for personal expenses (25%) given four dependants and the age of the deceased, with the appropriate multiplier.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others(2018 ACJ 2782)PositiveThe decision is used to justify awards for loss of love and affection, distinguishing amounts for dependants in similar cases.

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 Kumari (W/o Venugopalan) and Others v. Ajith Kumar and Shaju and The National Insurance Co. 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1981 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11-03-2010 IN O.P (MV) NO.1307/2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-** - **1 KUMARI, W/O VENUGOPALAN** - **2 AKHIL (MINOR,) S/O.VENUGOPALAN.** - **3 APARNA (MINOR), D/O.VENUGOPALAN.** - **4 VELAYUDHAN** - **ALL PPELLANTS RESIDING AT KORAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. MINOR APPELLANTS 2 & 3 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER, THE FIRST APPELLANT).** **BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-** - **1 AJITH KUMAR, S/O KRISHNAN, ITTITHARA HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR- 680 664.** - **2 SHAJU, S/O.BALAN, NAMBIANTHARA HOUSE PUTHUMANAPARAMBIL DESOM, S.N PURAM, PANANGAD P.O, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 665.** - **3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. PB NO.25 BRANCH,NORTH PARAVOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.** - **R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH** 2 M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 3 ## **M.A.C.A No. 1981 of 2010** **---------------------------------------------** ## **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 Venugopalan, aged 48 years died in a motor accident took place on 05.05.2004. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a painter-cum-cook. His father, wife and two children were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.3,01,000/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 4 appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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.2,500/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 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] where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed person at Rs.4,500/- in the context of the accident took place in the year 2004, the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case can be certainly reckoned at Rs.4,500/-, in the context of the M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 5 accident took place in 2004. 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 four in number, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged above 40 and below 50, 25% 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 48, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '13'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.6,58,125/(Rs.4500x12x3/4x125/100x13). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,98,125/-. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 6 and suffering. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.6,000/- under that head. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.10,000/-under that head. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,000/- by way of additional compensation. 7. 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 2004, 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.25,000/- under those three heads. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.35,000/- under those heads. 8. Coming to the compensation for loss of love M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 7 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) and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2004, I am of the view that the father of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each under that head. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,05,000/by way of additional compensation. 9. No compensation is seen granted by the Tribunal towards transportation and damage to clothing and articles. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, the Tribunal should have granted Rs.2,500/- each towards those two heads as well. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 10. In short, the claimants are entitled to M.A.C.A No.1981 of 2010 8 Rs.5,47,125/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,47,125/- 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 Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. Sd/- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** ## **SMA**