High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-27Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation of Rs...

M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013

Case / Petition Number:M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2023-06-27
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced to Rs. 7,17,800 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition to date of deposit. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within two months. The court clarified no interest is payable for 1134 days of delay in filing the appeal.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,17,800; insurer to deposit with 7.5% interest; costs before Tribunal; no interest for 1134 days delay; two months to deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajitha M.P.
Remya C.K.
Rajeesh C.K.

Respondents

Unnikrishnan s/o Chathukutty
A.P. Moosakkutty
The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Celine Joseph (Smt.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Lal K. Joseph
• Lal.K. Joseph
• P. Muraleedharan (Thuravoor) (K/1651/2000)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, in OP(MV) No. 30/2006. The deceased, Rakesh, aged 21, died following injuries in a motorcycle–lorry collision on 25.04.2005. The petitioners, his mother and siblings, seek enhancement of compensation from the lorry owner and insurer, who contested liability and argued the claimed amount was excessive. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 4,73,500 under various heads. The appellants argued for higher income, contending Ext. A8 ( Rs.7,000 per month) was not proved; the employer’s evidence was not examined; on notional income grounds, they urged Rs.5,500 monthly income and appropriate future prospects. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the court considered Rs.5,000 as notional income for casual labourers; applying National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, 40% future prospects were added to arrive at Rs. 7,700 monthly income. A multiplier of 18 (per Sarla Verma) was applied given the deceased’s age, with 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. This recalculation yielded Rs. 11,08,800 for loss of dependency, leading to an enhanced total of Rs. 7,17,800 after adjusting for other heads (transport, filial consortium, loss of estate, funeral). The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest and costs, with a two‑month deadline, and the court clarified there would be no interest for 1134 days delay in filing the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income for casual labourers (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236)
40% future prospects (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC))
Multiplier based on age of deceased (Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., (2010) 2 KLT 802 (SC))
Deduction for personal and living expenses (1/3) in computing loss of dependency
Loss of consortium/filial consortium principles (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi; related jurisprudence)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s income at Rs. 3,500 per month due to lack of proof of Ext. A8; in light of Ramachandrappa, a higher notional income should be adopted (Rs. 5,000, and with future prospects 40%, total Rs. 7,700). Given the deceased’s age (21), a higher multiplier of 18 should be applied per Sarla Verma, with 1/3 deduction for living expenses, yielding a larger dependency base. They also claimed compensation for transportation, funeral, and filial consortium, and argued that interest should be computed from the petition date. Respondents argued negligence by the deceased and that the claimed amount was excessive, while admitting policy coverage but seeking to limit liability.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argued that liability should be capped by negligence of the deceased as sole cause of accident; they sought to minimize compensation, contesting higher incomes and future prospects; urged that standard statutory heads be adhered to, and that the Tribunal’s award was not excessive. They also contested any enhancement beyond the Tribunal’s order and urged that liability be restricted in accordance with policy terms and statutory limitations.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Court adopted the Ramachandrappa principle to fix a higher notional income for the deceased (notionally Rs. 5,000 for casual labourer).
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others	[2017] 4 KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Court followed the Pranay Sethi decision to apply 40% future prospects.
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.	[2010] 2 KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Court applied the multiplier based on the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and Ors.	(2021) 11 SCC 780	Positive	Cited to justify deduction treating loss of love and affection accordingly when compensation is already awarded under another head; clarified position on related 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.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 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`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ``` M.A.C.A. No. 2048 OF 2013 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.P(MV) No. 30/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - `1 RAJITHA M.P AGED 45 YEARS W/O. LATE CHANDRAN, REMYA NIVAS, PARIYARAMKUNNU, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.` - `2 REMYA C.K. AGED 25 YEARS D/O. LATE CHANDRAN, REMYA NIVAS, PARIYARAMKUNNU, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.` - `3 RAJEESH C.K. AGED 26 YEARS S/O. LATE CHANDRAN, REMYA NIVAS, PARIYARAMKUNNU, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1UNNIKRISHNAN S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, AGED NOT KNOWN, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARINGATHODE, PERUMKULAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 672548. ``` - `2 A.P.MOOSAKUTTY S/O. KHADER HAJI, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673571.` - `3 THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHAFEER COMPLEX, 6/975 D, OPP.YMCA, KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT – 673001.` ``` BY ADVS. LAL K JOSEPH R3 LAL.K. JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)(K/1651/2000) ``` M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 2 ``` SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997) ANZIL SALIM(K/000447/2018) ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in O.P. (MV) No. 30/2006 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta have preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondents in accordance with their status in the claim petition. 2. Heard Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company. 3. The 1[st] petitioner is the mother and petitioners 2 and 3 are the siblings of deceased Rakesh, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.04.2005. According to the petitioners, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, a lorry bearing Reg. No. M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 4 KL-11-5/9597, driven by the 1[st ] respondent and owned by the 2[nd] respondent, hit against the motorcycle and Rakesh suffered serious injuries. Later, he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 5. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the lorry was having valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident. However, they contended that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased and that the amount claimed is excessive. 6. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 4,73,500/- under various heads, as compensation. M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 5 Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this appeal. 7. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Foreman in a private establishment and was drawing an amount of Rs. 7,000/- as salary and they have produced Ext. A8 salary certificate in evidence. However, the employer who issued Ext.A8 certificate was not examined before the Tribunal. Since Ext. A8 salary certificate was not proved, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/-. In the absence of any other evidence, the income of the deceased can be fixed notionally. The accident occurred in the year 2005. In view of the decision in [ **Ramachandrappa v Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** (2011) 13 SCC 236], even in the case of a casual labourer, the notional income of can be taken as Rs.5,000/-. M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 6 Accordingly, I take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,500/- for assessment of compensation. Following the decision in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** , 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the income can be arrived at Rs. 7,700/-. 8. The deceased was aged 21 years. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as '16' taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased. As held by the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)],** it is the age of the deceased that has to be taken into consideration for fixing the multiplier. Therefore, the multiplier applicable is '18'. The 1[st] petitioner is the mother and respondents 2 and 3 are the unmarried siblings, of the deceased. Since the number of M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 7 dependents is 3, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is 1/3. On the basis of the aforesaid factors, the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be reworked. 9. Towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,48,000/-. On recalculation of compensation with re-fixed income and multiplier, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 11,08,800/- (7,700 x 12 x 18 x 2/3) under the head loss of dependency. Therefore, an additional amount of **Rs. 6,60,800/-** (11,08,800 – 4,48,000) is granted under the said head. 10. Towards transportation expenses, only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been granted. Since the deceased was hospitalised after the accident, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 7,000/- can be M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 8 awarded under the head transportation expenses. Accordingly, an enhanced amount of **Rs. 2,000/** - is awarded under the said head. 11. Towards loss of consortium, no amount has been awarded. The 1[st] petitioner, the mother of the deceased is entitled for an amount of **Rs. 40,000/-** towards filial consortium [ **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** . The same is awarded. 12. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. Since compensation has been awarded under the head loss of consortium, no amount is payable under **United India** the head loss of love and affection [ **Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780]** . Accordingly, the said amount has to be deducted. M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 9 13. No amount is seen awarded towards loss of estate. The petitioners are entitled for an amount of **Rs. 15,000/-** under said the head [ **Pranay Sethi** (supra)]. 14. Towards funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the head funeral **Sethi** and expenses **[Pranay** (supra)] therefore, they are granted an additional amount of **Rs. 10,000/-** under the said head. 15. Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 7,17,800/- (6,60,800 + 2,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 10,000 – 10,000) as enhanced compensation. The Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and M.A.C.A. No. 2048 of 2013 **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled to interest for a period of 1134 days' delay in filing the appeal as per order dated 22.01.2020 in C.M. Application No. 2505 of 2013. The appeal is disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** bnu