High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-05-30Partial relief granted; enhanced compensation a...

Lini v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:M.A.C.A.No.3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2019-05-30
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed of; the claimants are awarded a further Rs.6,06,000 by way of additional compensation, with interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount. Directions to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for deposit and disbursal of the enhanced amount are issued.
Final Disposition: Partial relief granted; enhanced compensation awarded; cross-objection disposed of; directions issued for deposit/disbursal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lini
Jomol
Jomon
Annakutty

Respondents

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.V.M. Salahudeen

Counsels for Respondents

• Lal George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in M.A.C.A.No.3996 of 2017 and Cross Objection No.104 of 2019, heard an appeal by the claimants seeking higher compensation for the death of Joseph in a motor-accident that occurred on 20-08-2015, and a cross-objection by the insurer challenging the Tribunal’s quantum. The Tribunal awarded Rs.11,79,000 to the claimants (wife, two minor children and mother). The appellants contended that the deceased’s income was undervalued and that the compensation under heads such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, love and affection and care & guidance must be recalculated, while the insurer argued for a modest enhancement and, in particular, for a lower figure under certain heads. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to view income when the source is not proved, and on Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance for quantification under various heads. It held that the deceased’s monthly income could be Rs.10,000 (in 2015), applied a multiplier of 14 for a 43-year-old, added 25% future prospects and deducted 1/4 personal expenses, yielding Rs.15,75,000 for dependency. Funeral expenses were reduced to Rs.15,000 (per Pranay Sethi), and excess sums under love/affection/consolation were adjusted. The net result is an additional compensation of Rs.6,06,000 with interest at 7.5%, and directions for deposit/disbursal.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting a meager monthly income (Rs.5,000) for the deceased and that higher income should be adopted in light of legal precedents. They urged a monthly income of Rs.10,000 for 2015, with a 14-year multiplier (age 43), 25% future prospects, and 3/4 deduction for personal expenses. They argued that the loss of dependency would be Rs.15,75,000, and that head-amounts for love and affection, loss of consortium and filial care required adjustment against the total, rather than granting Rs.3,00,000 across the three heads. They further submitted that funeral expenses be limited to Rs.15,000 per Pranay Sethi, and that the final amount of compensation should be increased to reflect these recalculations, with 7.5% interest on the additional amount.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contended that the Tribunal’s assessment should stand and that the compensation under the heads, including pain and suffering, should not be unduly enhanced. They argued for Rs.10,000 as appropriate for pain and suffering and defended the Tribunal’s findings on income, the deduction for personal expenses, and the overall framework of the award. They supported a cautious approach to quantum and opposed any sweeping increase in dependency compensation beyond the Tribunal’s calculation.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to support higher income when income of the deceased is not proved; guidelines for imputed monthly income in earlier years are cited and applied to the 2015 case.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	2014 (2) SCC 735	Positive	Similar principle for imputing income when not proved; used to justify higher monthly income in the calculation.
National Insurance Co Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Cited for determining funeral expenses and other head-amount limits under policy of compensation; used to fix Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others	2018 ACJ 2782	Positive	Cited for compensation for filial consortium; supports adjustments to head-amounts for dependants.

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 Lini v. National 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **M.A.C.A.No.3996 of 2017** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10-04-2017 IN O.P.(MV)NO.1002/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 LINI, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS,** **2 JOMOL, MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS, DATE OF BIRTH 13/02/06,** **3 JOMON, MINOR,AGED 8 YEARS,DATE OF BIRTH 23/04/08** **MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND,LINI, W/O. LATE JOSEPH. ALL ARE RESIDING AT THENGUM PALLIL HOUSE, P.O CHAKKITTAPPARA, KOZHIKODE.** **4 ANNAKKUTTY, W/O. DOMINIC, AGED 71 YEARS, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,KAKKADAMPOYIL, KOODARANJI, KOZHIKODE 673 604.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDEEN** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 930,SATHY ROAD, GANGHIPURAM, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU 641 012.** **BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.05.2019, ALONG WITH CO.104/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **CO.No.104 of 2019 IN M.A.C.A.NO.3996/2017** **FROM O.P.(M.V)NO.1002/2016, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT:** **THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 930, SATHY ROAD, GANGHIPURAM, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU, PIN 641 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NATIONAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:** **1 LINI, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. LATE JOSEPH, THENGUM PALLI HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPPARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN 673 526. 2 JOMOL (MINOR), AGED 10 YEARS, D/O. LATE JOSEPH, THENGUM PALLIL HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPPARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LINI, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. LATE JOSEPH, THENGUM PALLIL HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPPARA PIN 673 526. 3 JOMON (MINOR), AGED 8 YEARS, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, THENGUM PALLIL HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPPARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LINI, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. LATE JOSEPH, THENGUM PALLIL HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPPARA PIN 673 526.** M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -3- **4 ANNAKKUTTY, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. DOMINIC, KOTTAKKAL HOSUE, KAKKADAMPOYIL, KOODARANJI, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 604.** **BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.3996/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -4- ## **M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -----------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellants in the appeal are the claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They are aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The Cross objection is by the insurer in the proceedings challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. One Joseph died in a motor accident on 20.08.2015. He was aged 43 years. His wife, two minor children and the mother were the claimants in the proceedings. It is alleged that the deceased was working in the City Club, Mananthavadi as a House Keeper and was earning a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month. A sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. The Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances, granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.11,79,000/- by way of compensation. As noted, both the claimants as also the insurer are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -5- 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the insurer. 4. Though the claimants have produced Ext.A13 certificate issued by the City Club, Mananthavadi to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has not acted upon Ext.A13, as the same was not proved. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. In the light of the decisions of the Apex court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq** v. **Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.** **Ltd.** [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of persons whose income could not be established, at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/-, in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, according to me, in so far as the accident in the instant case took place in the year 2015, the monthly income of the deceased could have been reckoned at Rs.10,000/-. The multiplier to be applied in the case of a person aged 43 is '14'. 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects in M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -6- respect of a person aged above 40. As there were four claimants, one fourth of the income is to be deducted towards . personal expenses. If compensation payable to the claimants towards loss of dependency is worked out in this fashion, the same would come to Rs.15,75,000/(Rs.10,000x125/100x12x14x3/4). The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.8,19,000/- by way of compensation under the said head. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.7,56,000/- by way of compensation towards loss of dependency. 5. It is seen that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], the claimants are entitled to only a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the said head. A sum of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the said head is, therefore, in excess. Further, it is seen that under three heads, namely love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of care and guidance, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants altogether a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. True, the wife of the deceased is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium, and the compensation payable to the wife of M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -7- the deceased under the said head in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** is Rs.40,000/-. Likewise, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and others** (2018 ACJ 2782), the mother of the deceased is entitled to compensation for filial consortium, and the compensation payable to the mother under the said head comes to Rs.40,000/. Similarly, the children are entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection at Rs.40,000/- each. In other words, Rs.1,40,000/granted by the Tribunal under the three heads aforesaid is in excess. The total excess compensation granted by the Tribunal would therefore, come to Rs.1,50,000/-. If the said excess compensation is adjusted against the additional compensation to which the claimants are found entitled to, the net additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.6,06,000/- . 6. The Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the insurer contended that Rs.10,000/would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants under the said head. In so far as the accident took place in the year 2015, according to me, the compensation M.A.C.A.No. 3996 of 2017 & Cross Objection No.104 of 2019 -8- granted by the Tribunal under the said head cannot be said to be excessive. In the result, the appeal and Cross objection are disposed of granting to the claimants a further sum of Rs.6,06,000/- by way of compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5%. The parties are at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **JUDGE** VV