MACA 764 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2022-08-31
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal’s award is reduced by Rs 35,800, with the addition of proportionate interest. The appellant has already deposited 50% of the award; from the balance, Rs 35,800 (plus interest) is to be deducted in accordance with Circular No. 3 of 2019 and OM dated 07-11-2019 after clearing liabilities for tax, balance court-fee, and legal benefits fund. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; Award reduced by Rs. 35,800; No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

National Insurance Company Ltd. (Appellant)

Respondents

Sarada, W/o. Late Sreenivasan
Smitha Kumari
Sumeshmon
Sachin Mon
SirajuDeen
Nireesh Mohan
Nasir @ Nissar
Sainulabdeen
Fathima Beevi
Shihabudin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Lal George

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M.G. Sreejith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) from Kerala High Court (OP(MV) 1350/2005) filed by The National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Pathanamthitta award for the death of Sreenivasan (42-43 years old) in a road traffic accident on 16 May 2004. The Tribunal awarded Rs 8,73,300 on a claim of Rs 6,00,000, with arguments focusing on heads of compensation such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, love and affection, and loss of estate. The insurer contends the compensation is excessive, disputing the quantum and certain heads like loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, and alleging notional income and future prospects were incorrectly calculated. The court cites Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951) to fix notional income principles, noting the deceased’s income could be Rs 4,000 per month with 25% future prospects (Rs 5,000) and adjustments for dependents. After recalculations, the court finds a net excess of Rs 35,800 in the Tribunal’s award, allowing the appeal in part and directing deduction of Rs 35,800 (plus interest) from the balance deposited, with no costs to be awarded. The decision is delivered by Justice Sophie Thomas on 31 August 2022.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] - notional income and future prospects principle in MACT calculations.
Future prospects: 25% addition for dependents in computing compensation.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the MACT award is excessive, miscalculates notional income (citing Ramachandrappa) and wrongly awards beyond the claim amount. It submits that notional income should reflect Rs 4,000 monthly (claimants’ own assertion) with 25% future prospects and proper deduction for four dependents, yielding a significantly lower dependency loss, along with adjustments on funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and love-and-affection heads; overall, the Tribunal’s Rs 8,73,300 is not sustainable; the insurer seeks reduction by Rs 2,39,000 (as indicated in their table) and a net decrease of Rs 35,800 after considering deductions and deposits.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants argue the Tribunal’s award fairly compensates the loss, including dependency, funeral expenses, love and affection, and estate; they seek upholding of the Tribunal’s quantum and oppose unwarranted reductions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[AIR 2011 SC 2951]	Positive	Cited to justify notional income and future-prospects methodology in MACT; applied as a guiding principle, with adjustments based on facts (income fixed at Rs.4000/month, 25% future prospects).

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST]DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA,1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 764 OF 2014`** ## **`OP(MV) 1350/2005 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA`** ``` APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)1350/2005: ``` ``` THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS LAL GEORGE ``` ``` RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5, 6 & 7 IN MV(OP)NO.1350/2005: ``` - **`1 SARADA, W/O. LATE SREENIVASAN, PATHALUKUTHI HOUSE, PARAKKULAM, THEKKUTHODE P.O., THANNITHODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689699.`** - **`2 SMITHA KUMARI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. LATE SREENIVASAN, PATHALUKUTHI HOUSE, PARAKKULAM, THEKKUTHODE P.O., THANNITHODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689699.`** - **`3 SUMESHMON, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. LATE SREENIVASAN, PATHALUKUTHI HOUSE, PARAKKULAM, THEKKUTHODE. P.O., THANNITHODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689699.`** - **`4 SACHIN MON, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. LATE SREENIVASAN, PATHALUKUTHI HOUSE, PARAKKULAM, THEKKUTHODE P.O., THANNITHODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689699. (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SARADA).`** MACA 764 of 2014 2 - **`5 SIRAJUDEEN, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, MARUTHIMOODU HOUSE, SATHYAMANGALAM, KOLLAYIL P.O., KOLLAM (DIED)., -691541.`** - **`6 NIREESH MOHAN, PUTHEN VEETTIL, THEKKUTHODE P.O, THANNITHODU VILLAGE,- 689699.`** - **`7 NASIR @ NISSAR, S/O. MEERA SAHIB, CHARUVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKUTHODE P.O., THANNITHODU VILLAGE, 689699.`** - **`8 SAINULABDEEN, MARUTHIMOODU HOUSE, SATHYAMANGALAM, KOLLAYIL.P.O., 691541, KOLLAM.`** - **`9 FATHIMA BEEVI, MARUTHIMOODU HOUSE, SATHYAMANGALAM, KOLLAYIL P.O., KOLLAM- 691541.`** - **`10 SHIHABUDIN, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, MARUTHIMOODU HOUSE, SATHYAMANGALAM, KOLLAYIL P.O., KOLLAM-691541.`** ``` R1 TO R4 BY ADV SRI.M.G.SREEJITH ``` ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARD ON 26.08.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 764 of 2014 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The 4[th] respondent Insurer is the appellant herein challenging the impugned award in OP(MV) No.1350 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. According to the appellant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and so it is liable to the set aside. 2. One Mr.Sreenivasan met with a road traffic accident on 16.05.2004 at 4.15 p.m. and he succumbed to the fatal injuries he had suffered in that accident. The deceased Sreenivasan was the cleaner of KL-8/G-4320 lorry and for giving way to a KSRTC bus, he came out of the lorry and while giving directions, the lorry skidded off the road and the timber loaded in the lorry fell down on the deceased and he sustained serious injuries. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, approached the Tribunal claiming MACA 764 of 2014 4 compensation of Rs.6,00,000/and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,73,300/- and that is challenged by the Insurer. 3. The appellant is disputing the amount awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Moreover, though the claim was only Rs.6,77,000/-, the Tribunal awarded compensation exceeding the claim and so, the award is liable to be set aside. 4. The deceased was a 43 year old lorry cleaner on the date of his death. The accident was in the year 2004. So going by the decision **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , his notional income ought to have been fixed as Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal took only Rs.3,000/- as his notional income. But even according to the claimants, his monthly income MACA 764 of 2014 5 was only Rs.4,000/-. So, his income ought to have been fixed as Rs.4,000/-. Since he was a lorry cleaner, aged only 43, towards future prospects, he was eligible to get an addition of 25%. So his income could have been fixed as Rs.5,000/-. On deducting ¼ towards personal expenses, as he was having four dependents, his monthly income could have been taken as Rs.3,750/-. So the loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.6,30,000/- (3750X12x14). But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,36,800/-. So, there was difference of Rs.1,93,200/-, which was in fact due to the dependents. 5. Under the head funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/was awarded in the place of eligible amount of Rs.15,000/-. So, Rs.10,000/- was awarded in excess by the Tribunal. 6. Towards pain and suffering, the legal heirs were not entitled to get any amount. But the Tribunal MACA 764 of 2014 6 awarded Rs.5,000/- and that amount is liable to be deducted. 7. Towards love and affection, the wife and three children were eligible to get Rs.44,000/- each, which will come to Rs.1,76,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/- in total under the head loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. So an excess amount of Rs.2,24,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal under that head. 8. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- whereas the claimants were eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So, there is deficit of Rs.10,000/under the head ‘loss of estate’. So, on going through the amount awarded and the amount ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal, according to the appellant, Rs.2,39,000/- was awarded in excess. But, when the income of the deceased is taken as MACA 764 of 2014 7 Rs.4,000/-, he was eligible to get excess amount of Rs.1,93,200/and also Rs.10,000/towards loss of estate amounting to Rs.2,03,200/- in total. So, the difference is only Rs.35,800/-. |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Amounts deducted in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|Rs.4,36,800/-|Rs.6,30,000/-||Rs.1,93,200 /-| |Funeral expenses|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.10,000/-|| |Pain and suffering|Rs.5,000/-|…..|Rs.5,000/-|| |Love and affection|Rs.4,00,000/-|Rs.1,76,000/-|Rs.2,24,000/-|| |Loss of estate|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.10,000/-| |Total|||Rs.2,39,000/-|Rs.2,03,200/-| |||||| |Excess amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.**35,800/-** (2,39,000 - 2,03,200)||||| Excess amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. **35,800/-** (2,39,000 - 2,03,200) 9. So, the appeal is allowed in part finding that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.35,800/- in MACA 764 of 2014 8 excess of what was due to respondents 1 to 4. 10. The appellant has already deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as per direction of this Court. From the balance amount to be deposited, the appellant can deduct Rs.35,800/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred only) with proportionate interest. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the respondents towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed in part to that extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/25.08.2022