High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-15Disposed of

MACA 1113 of 2018 & CO 14 of 2019 (against the order/judgment in O.P.(MV) No.1376 of 2011) - High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:MACA 1113 of 2018; CO 14 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman, J.
Judgment Date: 2023-06-15
Court Decision / Holding: The court enhances the compensation by Rs. 90,500 and reduces the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5%. It notes that 50% of the enhanced amount with interest and costs was deposited pursuant to an interim order; the balance amount shall be deposited with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation, within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The appeal and cross-objections are disposed of as above.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Kayamkulam (Divisional Manager)

Respondents

Sneha (22), D/o Biji, Vellikara Veedu, Gurunathanmannu PO, Seethathode 689 667
Stephy (21), D/o Biji, Vellikara Veedu, Gurunathanmannu PO, Seethathode 689 667
Stella (19), D/o Biji, Vellikara Veedu, Gurunathanmannu PO, Seethathode 689 667
Steena (16), D/o Biji, represented by her next friend Mr. C.A. Binoy, Charivukalayil, Koruthodu PO, Kanjirappally, Kottayam 686 513
Joseph S/o Devassiya, Vellikara Veedu, Gurunathanmannu PO, Seethathode 689 667

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Lal George

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri A.N. Santhosh
• Sri Sebastian Varghese (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court judgment in MACA 1113 of 2018 (with CO 14 of 2019) arising from the MACT award in O.P.(MV) No.1376/2011, Pathanamthitta. The 2011 accident left Smt. Biji’s four minor children as dependants after her death as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 23,69,500 towards several heads with 9% interest from the petition date and costs. The insurer, National Insurance Company Limited, challenged the award as excessive, while the petitioners (cross objectors) contended the amount was too low and demanded greater compensation for dependency, future prospects, and other heads of damages. The Court revisits the computation, applying the well-established multiplier of 15 from Sarla Verma and adopting 40% future prospects since the deceased was not a permanent employee. Notional income is reassessed: Rs.12,000 per month for a graduate employee; Rs.8,000 for a manual laborer based on Ramachandrappa, with the 40% addition leading to Rs.16,800 as notional income for dependency. After applying a 3/4 deduction for personal expenses, the dependency award becomes Rs.22,68,000, with an earlier Rs.18,22,500 already granted, yielding an enhanced head of Rs.4,45,500. The court then applies the Pranay Sethi framework to reduce non-dependency heads, disallowing or reducing pain and suffering, loss of love and affection to Rs.40,000 per person, and loss of estate to Rs.15,000. Funeral expenses are capped at Rs.15,000. In total, the court awards an enhanced sum of Rs.90,500, directs 50% of the enhanced amount with accrued interest already deposited, and requires the remaining amount to be deposited at 7.5% interest within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The appeal and cross-objections are disposed of accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010) 2 KLT 802 (SC) – multiplier rule (15) and dependency calculations
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236 – guidelines on notional income and 40% future prospects
Pranay Sethi and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (SC) (2017) 4 KLT 662 – loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and estate head adjustments
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon (AIR 2021 SC 3913) – denial of pain and suffering head
General principles from Pranay Sethi (regarding heads of compensation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant insurer contends the Tribunal’s award is excessive and not sustainable in light of the deceased’s income estimates, working status, and applicable guidelines. Counsel argues for recalibration of compensation using conservative income figures, stricter devotion to the notional income rules and earlier Supreme Court decisions (Sarla Verma, Ramachandrappa), and reduction of interest from 9% to align with prevailing jurisprudence.

Contentions of Respondents

The petitioners/cross objectors submit that the Tribunal’s award under-compensated the dependents. They seek enhanced damages for loss of dependency (with 40% future prospects and appropriate multiplier), and restoration or increase in heads such as love and affection, loss of estate, and funeral expenses in line with Pranay Sethi and related precedents. They also challenge the Tribunal’s deduction and the treatment of pain and suffering, arguing the need for full compensation consistent with the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Used as the controlling authority for multiplier (15) and dependency computations.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Guides notional income and future prospects for calculating dependency.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kahlon	AIR 2021 SC 3913	Positive	Supports denial of pain and suffering in the present context.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others	(2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Guides reduction in heads such as love and affection and funeral expenses; informs heads of compensation.

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 MACA 1113 of 2018 & CO 14 of 2019 (against the order/judgment in O.P.(MV) No.1376 of 2011) - High Court of Kerala 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945** **MACA NO. 1113 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 1376/2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, PATHANAMTHITTA / IV** ## **ADDL. M.A.C.T.** ## **APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P.(MV) NO.1376 OF 2011:** THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NELSON COMPLEX, PUTHIYIDAM, PB.NO.60, KAYAMKKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.LAL GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.MV)** ## **NO.1376/2011:** 1 SNEHA AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. 2 STEPHY AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. 3 STELLA AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. 4 STEENA AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND MR.C.A.BINOY, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, CHARIVUKALAYIL, KORUTHODU PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 513. - 5 JOSEPH S/O.DEVASSIYA, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH BY ADV. SRI. SEBASTIAN VARGHESE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2023, ALONG WITH CO.14/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945** ## **CO NO. 14 OF 2019** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 1113/2018 OF HIGH COURT** ## **OF KERALA** ## **CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:** 1 SNEHA AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. - 2 STEPHY AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. - 3 STELLA AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, VELLIKARA VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU PO, SEETHATHODE 689 667. 4 STEENA AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.BIJI, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND MR.C.A.BINOY, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, CHARIVUKALAYIL, KORUTHODU PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 513. BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:** THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NELSON COMPLEX, PUTHIYIDAM, PB.NO.60, KAYAMKKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682035 BY ADV. SRI. SEBASTIAN VARGHESE – SC ## **THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **15.06.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.1113/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 3 ## **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1113 of 2018 & C.O.14 of 2019** **-------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 15[th] day of June, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** The 2[nd] respondent insurance Company in O.P.(MV) No.1376 of 2011 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta has filed the captioned appeal challenging the Award dated 22.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal .The Cross Objection is filed by the petitioners in the original petition. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. Heard Sri.Lal.K.Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/cross objectors. 3. The petitioners are the minor children of Smt. Biji, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 4 16.6.2011. According to the petitioners, the deceased, while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, sustained injuries when the motor cycle hit against granite stones lying on the side of the road. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a B.Com graduate and was working as an Accountant in a private establishment, having a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. They claimed an amount of Rs.31,40,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.23,69,500/- as compensation under various heads with 9% p.a from the date of this petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the Award. 4. The insurer has filed the appeal contending that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. 5. The Cross objection is filed by the petitioners contending that the amount awarded is too low. MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 5 6. In view of the rival claims, this Court has to examine whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and if not, what will be the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimants. 7. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 [ **Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** . The deceased was not a permanent employee. Therefore, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Since there are four dependents, the deduction towards her personal and other living expenses should be ¼. In the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal has taken the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. The deceased was a B.Com graduate and Ext.A11 certificate has been produced in proof of the same. As per the guidelines in **Ramachandrappa v** MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 6 **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional monthly income of a manual laborer in respect of an accident happened in the year 2011 can be taken as Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of dependency, I fix the notional monthly income of the deceased, a Graduate employee as Rs.12,000/-. On adding 40% towards future prospects, the figure would arrive at Rs.16,800/-. Accordingly, the compensation for loss of dependency is re-calculated as Rs.22,68,000/(16,800x12x15x3/4). After deducting Rs.18,22,500/already awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.4,45,500/-** under the said head. 8. Towards pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.** v. **Kahlon** [AIR 2021 SC 3913], the MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 7 petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, are not entitled to any amount under the said head. Therefore, Rs.20,000/- has to be deducted. 9. Towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded. As per the decision in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)],** only an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head funeral expenses. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/has to be deducted from the total compensation. 10. Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the petitioners resulting in a total sum of Rs.4,00,000. Following the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.40,000/each. Accordingly, compensation for loss of love and affection is reworked as Rs.1,60,000/-(40,000x4). Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,40,000(4,00,000-1,60,000) MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 8 has to be deducted from the total compensation. 11. Towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded. Going by the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.85,000/- has to be deducted from the said head. 12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is too high. I find force in the said submission and I am inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5%. 14. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.90,500/-.** Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.01.2019 in the review petition filed in M.A.C.A 1113/2018, 50% of the award amount with interest and MACA 1113/2018 & CO. 14/19 9 costs was deposited before the Tribunal. The balance amount, as enhanced by this Court, shall be deposited with 7.5% interest p.a from the date of the petition till realisation with costs, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-..+