High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-06-24Appeals disposed of with enhanced compensation;...

Legal heirs of Late K. Krishnankutty v. KSRTC and New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 3377 of 2014; MACA No. 461 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Honourable Mr. Justice N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-06-24
Court Decision / Holding: The appeals are disposed of with enhanced compensation to the petitioners. The court recalculated notional income to ₹22,500/month, added 10% toward future prospects, and deducted 1/3 for living expenses, resulting in revised loss of dependency ₹18,63,000. Funeral expenses were reduced to ₹15,000, loss of estate increased to ₹15,000, and loss of consortium capped at ₹40,000; loss of love and affection retained at ₹50,000 each. The total enhanced compensation amounts to ₹5,61,000 as additional compensation (over the Tribunal award) payable with 9% interest from the date of OP(MV) and within one month. The judgment also records the standardization rules from Pranay Sethi for various heads. The petitions are disposed of accordingly with the specified remedies and corrections later incorporated in orders.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of with enhanced compensation; insurer ordered to pay ₹5,61,000 additional compensation with 9% interest within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lakshmikutty T.N., W/o late Krishnankutty
Manju K.K., D/o late Krishnankutty
Rahul K.K., S/o late Krishnankutty

Respondents

KSRTC (Managing Director, KSRTC, Fort, Trivandrum)
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pathanammthitta

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. A. N. Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P. C. Chacko (KSRTC)
• Adv. P. Jacob Mathew
• Adv. Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Adv. Preethi R. Nair
• Adv. John Mathew (SC), KSRTC
• Adv. Lal George
• Adv. Lakshmi V. Parameswaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a motor accident claims appeal disposed of by a single judge of the Kerala High Court (N. Nagareesh, J.) on 24 June 2020, involving MACA Nos. 3377 of 2014 and 461 of 2015, arising from an Award in OP(MV) No.1523/2012 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The deceased, Krishnankutty, a businessman who ran a photographic studio and a medical shop (and STD booth), died following injuries in a KSRTC bus accident on 09.08.2012; his legal heirs claimed compensation under Section 166 MV Act. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded ₹24,71,483, with monthly income fixed at ₹15,000 and a multiplier of 9. Both the appellants (legal heirs) and the insurer challenged the quantum. The High Court re-evaluated income, applying evidence of PW1 (daughter of the deceased) and documents showing multiple businesses, and held the notional monthly income at ₹22,500 with 10% future prospects, deducting 1/3 for living expenses, resulting in higher loss of dependency (₹18,63,000) and granting enhancements across several heads (funeral, loss of estate, love & affection, and loss of consortium). It applied Pranay Sethi standards for standardized heads and re-calibrated several components, ultimately directing the insurer to pay an additional ₹5,61,000 with 9% interest. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with corrections issued later in 2020–2021.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects doctrine (Sarla Verma) – addition to loss of dependency for self-employed/dependent earners
Standardisation of heads for award under Pranay Sethi (funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium)
Notional income method with deduction of personal living expenses (1/3) and multiplier approach
Loss of love and affection and loss of consortium heads recalibrated under Pranay Sethi (2017) standards

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the Tribunal under-assessed the deceased's income and erred in not suitably applying the future-prospects doctrine. They urged higher income based on three establishments (Ragam Studio, medical shop, and STD Booth) and argued that expenses and losses (loss of income, love and affection, and loss of estate) warranted increases. They challenged the Tribunal’s awards under several heads (e.g., funeral, love & affection, consortium) as understated, and pressed for adherence to wider benchmarks from leading authorities (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi).

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argued that notional income fixed by the Tribunal was high and that future-prospects addition should be limited per Reshma Kumari; it urged standardized deductions per Pranay Sethi and reduction of certain heads (funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium) with respect to prevailing rates. KSRTC contended the driver was not negligent and that the quantum should be moderated, particularly in view of the standard norms for heads of compensation and income.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another	(2013) 9 SCC 65	Distinguished	Court rejected the Reshma Kumari approach on future prospects to justify the quantum, applying Sarla Verma instead.
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Court applies the Sarla Verma framework for adding future prospects to compensation in motor vehicle accidents.
Pranay Sethi and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used for standardizing heads like funeral expenses and loss of estate; guided proportional reductions.
Valsamma Vs. Binu Jose	(2014) 1 KLT 10	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of loss of consortium but not adopted as sole basis; court relies on Pranay Sethi for the quantum.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Reinforces standardized heads and limits on awards under Pranay Sethi.

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 Legal heirs of Late K. Krishnankutty v. KSRTC and New India Assurance 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 N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020/3RD ASHADHA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.3377 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05-08-2014 IN OP(MV)NO.1523/2012 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 LAKSHMIKUTTY T.N.,W/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNAVILASAM,KOTTANAD P.O.,THIRUVALLA.** - **2 MANJU K.K.,D/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, -DO- -DO-** - **3 RAHUL K.K.,S/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:** - **1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, FORT, TRIVANDRUM-695 023.** - **2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KUNNITHOTTATHIL TOWERS, ST. PETERS JUNCTION, RING ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **R1 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KSRTC R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. R2 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2020, ALONG WITH MACA.461/2015(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020/3RD ASHADHA, 1942** **MACA.No.461 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05-08-2014** **IN OP(MV)NO.1523/2012 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **APPELLANT:** **NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KUNNITHOTTATHIL TOWERS,ST.PETERS JUNCTION, RING ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.LAKSHMI V.PARAMESWARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 K.KRISHNANKUTTY,(DIED),S/O.PAPPUKOCHUMONY, KRISHNA VILASAM, KOTTANADU P.O., THIRUVALLA - 689 615.** - **2 LAKSHMIKUTTY T.N.,W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNA VILASAM, KOTTANADU P.O., THIRUVALLA - 689 615.** - **3 MANJU K.K.,AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNA VILASAM, KOTTANADU P.O., THIRUVALLA - 689 615.** - **4 RAHUL K.K.,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,KRISHNA VILASAM,** MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 3 - **KOTTANADU P.O.,THIRUVALLA - 689 615.** - **5 SAJU GEORGE (DRIVER),KSRTC BUS DEPOT, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.** - **6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, KSRTC R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KSRTC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2020, ALONG WITH MACA.3377/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 4 ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 2020**_ [M.A.C.A. Nos.3377 of 2014 and 461 of 2015] Legal heirs of Late K.Krishnankutty are in appeal against Award in OP(MV) No.1523/2012 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The 3[rd] respondent-insurer in the OP(MV) also invoked Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and filed appeal aggrieved by the said Award dated 05.08.2014. 2. Late K.Krishnankutty was a business man. He was running a medical shop and was proprietor of a Studio, both at Ettiyappara. He was owner of an STD Booth also, at Ranni. On 09.08.2012 when Krishnankutty was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle with registration No.KL-28A2773, a KSRTC passenger bus bearing No.KL-15-8235, driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle. 5 MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 Krishnankutty sustained serious injuries and died on 03.01.2013. Originally, the OP(MV) No.1523/2012 was filed by Krishnankutty, claiming compensation of ₹5,00,000/-. After his demise, appellants in MACA No.3377/2014, wife and children, got impleaded in the OP(MV) and amended the compensation amount claimed, to ₹35,00,000/-. 3. The legal heirs of late Krishnankutty, the appellants in MACA No.3377/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners' for clarity) contended that the offending KSRTC passenger bus was driven on the fateful day in a rash and negligent manner at an exorbitant speed so as to endanger human life and property. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was taken to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital where he was treated as in-patient from 09.08.2012 to 15.08.2012. As his physical condition worsened, he was taken to Ananthapuri Hospitals and Research institute, Thiruvananthapuram on 15.08.2012 and remained there till 05.12.2012. During this period, the deceased underwent a series of surgeries. The deceased was also given Ayurvedic MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 6 treatment at Kaustukan Panjakarma Centre at Kollam, but died while undergoing treatment there, on 03.01.2013. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners in the OP(MV) file under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contended the petitioners. 4. The second respondent-owner of offending KSRTC bus resisted the OP and stated that the Driver of the bus was not negligent and he was driving the vehicle with extreme care and caution and in moderate speed. The second respondent stated that the claims of the petitioners as regards the age, income and occupation of the deceased are incorrect and the compensation claimed is exorbitant. 5. The petitioners adduced oral and documentary evidence. Exts.A1 to A21 were marked and PW1 was examined. The Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, held that death of the deceased was caused due to the negligent driving of 1[st] respondent-Driver and the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 7 6. On consideration of materials produced to prove income, the Tribunal found that the deceased had a monthly income of ₹15,000/- as on the date of accident. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier 9 and awarded compensation of ₹24,71,483/- under the following heads:- |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount** **Claimed** **(in Rs.)**|**Amount** **Awarded** **(in Rs.)**|**Basis – vital** **details**| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of dependency|64,80,000|12,42,000|| |2.|Funeral Expenses|1,00,000|25,000|| |3.|Transport to hospital|50,000|13,000|Ext.A10 series| |4.|Damage to Clothes|2,000|1,000|| |5.|Loss of estate|50,000|5,000|| |6.|Loss of Love & affection|20,000|1,00,000|Rs.50,000/- each for III and II petitioner| |7.|Loss of Consortium|1,50,000|1,00,000|| |8.|Pain and suffering|2,00,000|50,000|| |9.|Medical Expenses|12,00,000|8,92,883|Ext.A9 series| |10.|By-standers Expenses|40,000|42,600|Ext.A11| ||**TOTAL**||₹**24,71,483**|| The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the OP(MV). Aggrieved by the compensation amount, the petitioners have filed MACA No.3377/2014 and MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 8 the third respondent-insurer (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer' for clarity) has filed MACA No.461/2015. 7. The learned counsel to the petitioners argued that the monthly income of ₹15,000/- of the deceased as arrived at by the Tribunal, is too low. The deceased was a flourishing businessman running three commercial establishments. In fact the deceased was paying more than ₹15,000/- as monthly rent, to run these establishments. Hence this income had to be fixed much above. The Tribunal awarded ₹50,000/only towards pain and suffering, which is too low, considering the suffering and treatment underwent by the deceased. No amount was awarded towards extra nourishment, though the deceased was in hospital for nearly 5 months. Compensation for loss of dependency, ₹12,42,000/- granted is too low. The petitioners are eligible for a higher compensation than ₹5,000/- towards loss of estate. Amount of ₹1,00,000/granted towards loss of love and affection, is also liable to the enhanced, contended the counsel for the petitioner. 8. _Per contra_ , the learned Standing Counsel for the MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 9 insurer, pursuing his appeal, argued that the notional monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Relying on the judgment in _**Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another** [(2013) 9 SCC 65]_ of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Standing Counsel argued that the principle of adding a certain percentage of income towards future prospects, was inappropriate in this case. Compensation granted towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is also liable to be reduced, in view of the standardised rates. Award of ₹1,00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and love and affection, cannot stand the scrutiny of law in view of the judgment in _**Valsamma Vs. Binu Jose** [2014 (1) KLT 10]_ _**.**_ Amount awarded towards pain and suffering is also exorbitant, contended the Standing Counsel. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer. 10. Both the petitioners and insurer challenge only the quantum of compensation. The age and avocation of the deceased and multiplier applied by the Tribunal, are not MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 10 disputed. The petitioners however contend that the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is far on a lesser side, whereas the insurer argues that the income fixed by the Tribunal, taking the deceased as a self-employed person is excessive and moreover, addition of amounts towards future prospects made by the Tribunal following the judgment in _**Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another** [(2009) 6 SCC 121]_ goes against the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another** [(2013) 9 SCC 65]_ . 11. The daughter of the deceased was examined as PW1 has stated that the deceased was running a photography and videography studio under the name 'Ragam Studio' for the last 30 years. The longevity of the said establishment/studio would show that the deceased had stable income from it. PW1 also deposed that since the year 2006, the deceased was running a medical store. According to PW1, from the said two establishments, the deceased was earning more than ₹80,000/- per month. Ext.A12 series MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 11 licence and profession tax receipt relating to the said business have been produced. Apart from the said two establishments, the deceased was running an STD Booth since the year 2000. Annexure-A13 Rent receipt has been produced in proof of the existence of the said STD Booth. From the deposition of PW1 and the documents marked, it is evident that the deceased on a reasonable estimate, should have been in receipt of a monthly income of more than ₹15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal, though the claim of the petitioners as regards monthly income of ₹80,000/- cannot be accepted. Considering the nature and the places of the business, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased from the said three establishments should be moderately fixed as ₹22,500/-. The appellant was aged 56 years and hence, an addition of 10% is necessary towards future prospects. The notional monthly income thus will be ₹24,750/-. Necessarily, personal and living expenses of the deceased have to be deducted. The deceased had three dependents. Therefore, 1/3[rd] of the monthly income is liable MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 12 to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting ₹7,500/-, the notional monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency would be ₹17,250/-. There is no dispute as regards the multiplier 9 to be adopted. Therefore, compensation towards loss of dependency to which the petitioners are entitled to, would be ₹18,63,000/- (₹17,250 x 12 x 9). The Tribunal has already awarded ₹12,42,000/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. Accordingly, the petitioners are declared to be entitled to an additional compensation of **₹6,21,000/-** under the head loss of dependency. 12. The Tribunal has awarded ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In view of the standardised rates prescribed in _**National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680]_ , the said amount of compensation has to be reduced to ₹15,000/-. Therefore, there will be a deduction of **₹10,000/-** under this head. 13. The Tribunal has granted ₹13,000/- as 13 MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 compensation for transport to hospital based on Ext.A10 series ambulance bills and ₹1,000/- towards damage to clothes. No interference is called for in the amounts granted under these heads. The Tribunal has awarded ₹5,000/- only towards compensation for loss of estate. In view of _**Pranay Sethi**_ (supra), the petitioners are eligible for ₹15,000/- as compensation for loss of estate. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an additional compensation for **₹10,000/-** for loss of estate. 14. ₹1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, ₹50,000/- each for petitioners 2 and 3, towards loss of love and affection. The amount so awarded is reasonable. However, the Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Going by the judgment in _**Pranay Sethi** (supra)_ , the petitioners would be eligible only for ₹40,000/- under this head. Accordingly, there will be a reduction of **₹60,000/-** from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium. The deceased met with the accident on 09.08.2012 and during the treatment, he died on 03.01.2013. MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 14 In the circumstances, this Court finds that the amount of ₹50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation towards pain and suffering is appropriate. The compensation for medical expenses of ₹8,92,883/- on the basis of Ext.A9 series bills and bystander expenses of ₹42,600/- awarded relying on Ext.A11 bystander's receipt also do not warrant any alteration. 15. In the circumstances, the petitioners are held entitled to enhancement of compensation under various heads as indicated below:- |(i)|Additional compensation towards loss of|₹6,21,000/-| |---|---|---| ||dependency|| |(ii)|Additional compensation towards loss of|₹10,000/-| ||estate|| ||Total|₹6,31,000/-| The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under certain heads, are liable to be reduced by the extent, as given below:- |(i)|Compensation towards funeral expenses|₹10,000/-| |---|---|---| ||(₹25,000 - ₹15,000)|| |(ii)|Compensation towards loss of consortium|₹60,000/-| ||(₹1,00,000 - ₹40,000)|| Total ₹70,000/- MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 15 Accordingly, the petitioners are held eligible for an additional compensation of ₹5,61,000/- (₹6,31,000 minus ₹70,000). The said amount will also carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the OP(MV). The insurer is directed to pay the additional compensation of **₹5,61,000/-** with interest, within a period of one month. Both the appeals are disposed of as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/22/06/2020 The common judgment dated 24.06.2020 in MACA No.3377/2014 and MACA No.461/2015 is corrected as follows as per order dated 08.02.2021 in I.A. No.1/2021 in MACA No.3377/2014 and order dated 27.10.2020 in I.A. No.1/2020 in MACA No.461/2015. The amount of ₹7,500/- shown in the second line on page 12 of the common judgment is corrected as ₹8,250/- instead of ₹7,500/-. The amount of ₹17,250/- shown in the 4[th] line of page MACA Nos.3377 of 2014 & 461 of 2015 16 12 is corrected as ₹16,500/-. The amount of ₹18,63,000/(₹17,250 x 12 x 9) shown in the 7[th] line on page 12 is corrected as ₹17,82,000/- (₹16,500 x 12 x 9) and the amount of ₹6,21,000/shown in the 11[th] line on page 12 is corrected as ₹5,40,000/instead of ₹6,21,000/-. Further, the amount of ₹6,21,000/- shown in paragraph 15 is corrected as ₹5,40,000/- and the total ₹6,31,000/- is corrected as ₹5,50,000/-. The figure ₹5,61,000/(₹6,31,000 - ₹70,000) appearing in the last paragraph on page 15 is corrected as ₹4,80,000/- (₹5,50,000 - ₹70,000) and also the additional compensation ₹5,61,000/- occurring in the 5[th] line of page 15 of the judgment is corrected as ₹4,80,000/-. Sd/Deputy Registrar