MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA,`** ## **`1945`** ``` CO NO. 35 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 172/2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT ``` ``` CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR ``` ``` MACA 184/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4/CLAIMANTS:`** ``` 1NARAYANAN P.P AGED 64 YEARS PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THRIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676301 2SULOCHANA AGED 58 YEARS PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THRIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676301., PIN - 676301 3AKHILA AGED 29 YEARS PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THRIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676301., PIN - 676301 4ANILA AGED 27 YEARS PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THRIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676301 BY ADV S.PRASANTH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY BRANCH OFFICE TIRUR, C.K.H. BUILDING, THAZHEPALAM, PONNANI ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676101 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL ``` **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 682018 ``` ``` SMT LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.184/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** ..3.. ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1945 MACA NO. 184 OF 2020 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 172/2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT ``` ## **`CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR`** ## **`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE TIRUR, C.K.H. BUILDING, THAZHEPALAM, PONNNANI ROAD, TIRUR 676 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI - 18 BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1NARAYANAN P.P. AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KOLAVAN, PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 301 2SULOCHANA AGED 56 YEARS W/O NARAYANAN, PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 301 ``` ``` 3AKHILA AGED 27 YEARS D/O. NARAYANAN, PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 301 ``` ``` 4ANILA AGED 25 YEARS D/O. NARAYANAN, PARAKKUNNU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD (PO), THIRUNNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 301 ``` ## **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` BY ADVS. SHRI.S.PRASANTH SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J SMT.HELEN P.A. SHRI.ARUN ROY SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2023, ALONG WITH CO.35/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** ..5.. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **`[CO Nos.35/2023, 184/2020]`** This appeal and cross objection, emante out of the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur (‘Tribunal’ for short), in OP(MV)No.172/2017. 2. MACA No.184/2020 has been filed by the Insurance Company alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive; while the Cross Objectors has filed CO No.35/2023 asserting to the contrary and seeking enhancement. 3. Constitutively, the facts show that Late Amal - son of Cross Objectors 1 and 2, and brother of cross objectors 3 and 4 - was involved in a motor accident on 22.11.2016, while the motorcycle he was riding as a pillion was hit by the offending vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Cross Objectors, thereupon, filed the Original Petition seeking Rs.32,90,000/- as compensation, but which has been allowed only to a sum of Rs.20,81,000/-. They thus assail the compensation as being inadequate. 4. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, argues that the compensation awarded is excessive primarily because, **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** ..6.. the notional income adopted by the Tribunal in favour of the deceased was incorrect. They also assert that one half from the income assessed ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, since he was a bachelor. 5. Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that, apart from the afore contentions, her client also has an assertion that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal, under the head ‘Loss of Love and Affection’, was impermissible as per _**United**_ _**India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur**_ [(2021) 11 SCC 780]. She thus prayed that this appeal be allowed, reducing the compensation as prayed for. 6. In response, Sri.S.Prasanth – learned counsel for the cross objectors, argued that the deceased was a student at that time and that being without aware of the forensic scenario, a claim for Rs.8,000/- per month was made by his clients. He submitted that, however, going by _**Minu Rout & Another v. Satyapradyumna Mohapatra & Ors**_ **.** [(2013) 10 SCC 695] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has postulated that, even where the claimants may have asked for a lesser amounts, the courts are expected to find the truth and to award **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** ..7.. commensurate compensation. He then asserted that, therefore, as per the standardisation stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ [(2011) 13 SCC 236], a minimum amount of Rs.10,500/- ought to have been reckoned as the notional income of the deceased because, the accident happened in the year 2016. He argued that this is more so because, the judgment declares that even a person who is a ‘Coolie’, or with unascertianable income, in that year, is entitled to the said figure. He then pointed out that, 40% future prospects has to be added to the income; and thus that the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Disability’ would deserve to be substantially increased. He thus prayed that the cross objections be allowed and the appeal dismissed. 7. I have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the evidence and documents on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties with the express consent that they can be acted upon by this Court without dispute. 8. When I evaluate the rival position, it is rendered without doubt that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,14,400/- to the appellants as ‘Loss of Future Income’ **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (though it should have been under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’), reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per month and then adding 40% future prospects to it, as per _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi**_ [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. However, as rightly argued by Sri.S.Prasanth the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Minu Rout** (supra) has declared it affirmatively that, what is relevant for the court is not the statements of the claimants, who perhaps would have been unaware of the legal stipulations or the factual basis for reckoning of the income of the deceased; and therefore, that a pragmatic view will have to be taken. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the standardization declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa** (supra) should have been adverted to; and therefore, that an amount of Rs.10,500/- must be reckoned as the notional income of the deceased. Certainly, 40% of it will have to be added as future prospects. 10. That said, the question arises as to whether one half of the notional income reckoned will have to be reduced as personal expenses of the deceased. In this regard, _**Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation**_ [2010 (2) KLT 802] guides my way because, it is mandated therein that, in the **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** ..9.. case of a bachelor, one half should be deducted as his personal expenses. I, therefore, propose to adopt the same. 11. What now remains is the question whether compensation could have been awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Loss of Love and Affection’. In this regard, certainly, **Satwinder Kaur** (supra) would compel me to delete the said compensation because, the law declared therein is that the compensation under the said head should be subsumed by the one under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. In the afore circumstances, this Appeal and the Cross Objection are ordered in the following manner: a. The compensation towards ‘Loss of Future Income’ (Loss of Dependency) is modified to be Rs.15,87,600/-, from Rs.18,14,400/- granted by the Tribunal, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.10,500/-, with 40% future prospects added to it and one half deducted as personal expenses. The multiplier of ‘18’ is adopted as per **Sarla Verma** (supra) for this purpose. b. The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Love of Affection’, granted by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, is deleted. In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the **MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023** ..10.. Tribunal will remain unaltered. Consequently, the appellant will be entitled to recover the compensation, as modified by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim until it is realised. In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ACR