High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-06-23Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

M.A. Joseph and others v. Director General of Police, Trivandrum and Kerala State Insurance Department

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 283 OF 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-06-23
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced compensation. It re-fixed the notional income to Rs. 3,500 per month, held that only the husband was dependent, and deducted 50% for personal living expenses. It awarded Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 1,47,000 for loss of dependency; it declined to award amounts for pain and suffering and for love and affection. The total enhanced compensation totaled Rs. 2,22,000, with an additional enhanced amount of Rs. 1,54,000, so that the overall improvement over the Tribunal’s award was Rs. 1,54,000. The 2nd respondent insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with disbursement through the Tribunal as per law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months; disbursement to be made by the Tribunal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.A. Joseph
Babu M.J.
M.J. George
Baby M.J.

Respondents

Director General of Police, Trivandrum
Kerala State Insurance Department, Trivandrum

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. Kochumol Koduvath
• Sri. Jacob Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. C.K. Prasad, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 283 of 2009) arising from a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thresiamma, wife of the first appellant and mother of appellants 2–4, died on 21-12-2004 following a road-traffic collision involving vehicle KL-01AD-4952. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, awarded Rs. 68,000 with interest and costs against the insurer; the appellants challenged the quantum, contending that the deceased was a homemaker and the family’s claim required appropriate recognition of her notional income and conventional heads of compensation (loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses) in line with Supreme Court guidance. The insurer admitted the vehicle’s insurance but argued the accident occurred due to the deceased’s negligence. The High Court, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and subsequent jurisprudence, reassesses notional income, dependency, and conventional heads. It fixes the deceased’s notional income at Rs. 3,500 per month (Rs. 42,000/year), holds that only the husband was dependent, and deducts 50% for personal living expenses. It awards Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 1,47,000 for loss of dependency, while deleting pain-and-suffering and love-and-affection heads. The total enhanced award becomes Rs. 2,22,000, and an additional Rs. 1,54,000 is directed as enhancement, with the insurer depositing the amount within two months for distribution through the Tribunal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be fair, reasonable and equitable
Fairness, reasonableness and equitability as guiding principles in determining compensation (Pranay Sethi)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that Thresiamma, as a homemaker, merited recognition of her notional income and that dependents (primarily the husband) were entitled to compensation under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses in line with Pranay Sethi. They pressed for a higher notional income consistent with 2004-era economic conditions (citing Rajendra Singh to justify Rs. 5,000 per month as notional income for homemakers) and urged re-calculation of dependency accordingly. They asserted that the Tribunal’s calculation undervalued the deceased’s contribution and the family’s losses, and sought restoration of compensation under conventional heads and proper consideration of all dependents and losses under the applicable heads.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents conceded liability by the insurer but contended the accident was attributable to the negligence of the deceased. They did not contest liability and supported a cautious approach to quantum, emphasizing the need to adhere to statutory limitations and jurisprudence on just compensation. They relied on the driver’s negligence as established and argued that the compensation should be calculated per statutory norms and current judicial guidance, with emphasis on constraints in evidence and the need to avoid excessive awards in light of 2004 circumstances.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Constitution Bench decision that just compensation must be determined on fairness, reasonableness and equitability; used as the guiding standard for calculation of compensation.
Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.	2020 (4) KLT 6 (SC)	Partly Overruled / Limited	Notional income of homemakers discussed as Rs. 5,000 per month in Rajendra Singh, but Kerala HC fixes it at Rs. 3,500 per month in this case.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others	[2020 (3) KHC 760]	Positive	Held that dependents are not entitled to compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’.
Kunjandy.L and others v. Rajendran	[2020 (2) KLT 315]	Positive	Court followed to delete or reduce compensation under ‘love and affection’ when covered under other heads.

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 M.A. Joseph and others v. Director General of Police, Trivandrum and Kerala State Insurance Department 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.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943** **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 2156/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 M.A.JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, MARUTHALIL HOUSE,KAKKAYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2 BABU M.J. AGED 45 YEARS MARUTHALIL HOUSE, MASS CORNER, MALAPARAMBA P.O.,, KOZHIKODE. 3 M.J.GEORGE AGED 42 YEARS MARUTHALIL HOUSE, KAKKAYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 4 BABY M.J. AGED 37 YEARS MARUTHALIL HOUSE, KAKKAYAM P.O.,, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH ## **ESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** 1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TRIVANDRUM. 2 KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT TRIVANDRUM. ADV.SRI.C.K. PRASAD - GP THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants were the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.2156/2005 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for brevity referred to as “Act”), claiming compensation on account of the death of Smt.Thresiamma (deceased)-- the wife of the 1[st] appellant and the mother of the appellants 2 to 4. 3. The facts in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are that: on 21.12.2004 while the deceased was walking along the Malaparamba road Kozhikode, a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01AD-4952 (offending vehicle) belonging to the 1[st] respondent hit the **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **3** deceased. She was taken to a nearby hospital and underwent treatment till 25.12.2004 when she breathed her last. The deceased was a house wife and aged 65 years. The appellants were the dependents of the deceased and hence they were entitled for compensation. The 2[nd] respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellants quantified the compensation at Rs.2,07,500/- which they limited to Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. The 2nd respondent - the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle – filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting that the offending vehicle was insured by it. However, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 5. The petitioners produced and marked Exts. A1 to A3 in evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the 2[nd ] respondent to **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **4** pay a compensation of Rs.68,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 20.9.2005 and costs of Rs.1,000/-. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 9. The sole question that emanates for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just? 10. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **5** reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. Ext.A1 F.I.R substantiates that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 2[nd] respondent. The respondents have not let in any contra evidence to discredit the assertions in the claim petition . Therefore, it stands proved that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ext.A2 also proves that the deceased expired on 25.12.2004 as a result of the accident. Hence, it is proved that the deceased lost her life as a result of the accident . ## **Notional income** 12. The main area of dispute with regard to the notional income of the deceased. Even though the appellants had claimed that the deceased was a homemaker and had a notional income of Rs.5,000/- per **6** ## **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** month, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per year, i.e., Rs.1,250/- per month. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [** 2020 (4) KLT 6 (SC)] has held that the notional income of a homemaker is to be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004, I am of the firm opinion that the deceased's notional income can safely be fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month. Accordingly, I fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month. ## **Dependency** 15. The appellants had produced Ext.A3 family membership certificate to prove that they were the legal heirs of the deceased. It is evident from the pleadings in the claim petition that the appellants 2 to 4 were aged 45, 42 and 37 respectively at the time of accident. Therefore, **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **7** there is no material to prove that they were dependents of the deceased. Hence only the 1[st] appellant - the husband of the deceased – was dependent on the deceased. 16. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the deceased and the fact that only the 1[st] appellant is the dependent of the deceased, I hold that ½ of the total compensation has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. 17. Following the above parameters, I re-fix the loss of dependency of the 1[st] appellant at Rs.1,47,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. In **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Clause No.8 of paragraph 61 has held that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/and 15,000/- respectively. Thus, I hold that the 1[st] appellant is entitled to compensation under the head ' loss of **8** ## **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** consortium' at Rs.40,000/-. Similarly, it is seen that the Tribunal had only awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/towards funeral expenses. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the said amount has to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Like wise, it is seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of estate'. Therefore, I award an amount of Rs.15,000/under the said head of claim. 19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others** [(2020(3)KHC 760] has held that the dependents of the deceased are not entitled for any compensation under the head 'pain and suffering'. Hence, I set aside the compensation awarded under the said head. Similarly, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head 'love and affection'. In view of the law laid down by this Court **9** ## **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** in **Kunjandy.L and others v. Rajendran** [2020 (2) KLT 315], since compensation has been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium', I set aside the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection'. 20. The Tribunal has awarded just compensation of Rs.1,000/- under the head 'transportation' and Rs.4,000/under the head 'medical expenses', which I find to be just and reasonable. 21. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the firm opinion that the 1[st] appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **10** |SI .No|Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees)|Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to Hospital|1,000|1,000| |2.|Funeral expenses|2,000|15,000| |3.|Pain and suffering|6,000|…| |4.|Loss of love and affection|5,000|….| |5.|Loss of estate|….|15,000| |6.|Loss of consortium|…|40,000| |7.|Loss of dependency|50,000|1,47,000| |8.|Medical expenses|4,000|4,000| ||Total|68,000 =======|2,22,000 =======| In the result, the appeal is allowed, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit by the 2[nd] respondent with proportionate costs. The 2nd **MACA NO. 283 OF 2009** **11** respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation awarded in the appeal before the Tribunal with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The disbursement of the enhanced compensation to the 1[st] appellant shall be done by the Tribunal in accordance with law. **Ma/23.06.2021 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ## **/True copy/**