High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-25Enhanced compensation of Rs.5,37,700; appeal al...

MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2024-07-25
Court Decision / Holding: The Appeal is allowed to the extent stated: enhanced compensation of Rs.5,37,700 is awarded. The insurer is directed to deposit Rs.5,37,700 with 9% interest from the date of petition until deposit, in two months. The Tribunal shall disburse 45:45:10 among the claimants after deducting liabilities. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Enhanced compensation of Rs.5,37,700; appeal allowed to that extent; insurer to deposit the amount; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SABEENA PLAMOOTTIL THARAYIL, PERIGNALA P.O.
ABDUL AZEEZ AREEPARAYIL, NIRANAM NORTH P.O.
ANEESHMOL (MINOR) ANSHAD MANZIL, KOPPRAPPURA, PULLIKKANAKKU P.O.

Respondents

SHIJU AYODYA (KRISHNAPURAM VEEDU), MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
REGHU ERNAHAN KANDY HOUSE, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA 01.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
• SRI.A.R.DILEEP
• SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
• SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This motor accident claims appeal arises from the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, challenging the Tribunal’s award of Rs.4,93,000 in O.P.(MV) No.293 of 2009 for the death of Anshad, a 19-year-old labourer, on 28.11.2008 on the Kollam–Alappuzha National Highway. The appellants, as his legal heirs, contended that the Tribunal under-compensated him and erred in fixing the notional income. They relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (AIR 2011 SC 2951) to argue that even a coolie’s notional income could be fixed higher than Rs.4,000. They further urged use of the Pranay Sethi framework (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680) to grant 40% future prospects since the deceased was under 40 and self-employed, leading to a higher monthly income and a larger dependency base. The court agrees to fix the notional income at Rs.6,000 per month and applies the 40% future-prospects addition, with a 50% deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 18, producing a loss of dependency of Rs.9,07,200. After accounting for amounts already awarded, the court enhances compensation across heads such as transportation, clothing, bystander expenses, funeral, loss of love and affection, and loss of estate. The aggregate enhanced sum is Rs.5,37,700, with directions to deposit and distribute among the claimants. The appeal is thus allowed to that extent, no costs awarded.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income and future prospects in motor accident claims (Ramachandrappa)
Future prospects and the multiplier approach (Pranay Sethi)
50% deduction for personal expenses (for a bachelor)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased. He was earning Rs.6,000 per month, but the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,000. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (AIR 2011 SC 2951), they argued that even a coolie could have his notional income fixed at around Rs.6,500 in 2008. The claimants contended the deceased was earning Rs.6,000 per month, and this Court should fix his notional income at Rs.6,000. Since he was below 40 and self-employed, 40% addition for future prospects should apply (per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680). This yields Rs.8,400 per month; after deducting 50% for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is Rs.9,07,200. After deducting Rs.4,32,000 already awarded, enhanced compensation comes to Rs.4,75,200, plus amounts for transportation (Rs.1,000), clothing (Rs.500), bystander expenses (Rs.1,000), enhanced funeral (Rs.5,000), loss of love and affection (Rs.50,000 as additional, parents; Rs.80,000 total but Rs.50,000 additional after deduction of Rs.30,000 awarded), loss of estate (Rs.15,000), and deduction of Rs.10,000 awarded for loss of life. The total enhanced compensation amounts to Rs.5,37,700.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal’s award is just and reasonable, and there is no illegality or irregularity requiring interference. They oppose any upward revision of the compensation amount.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix higher notional income for a coolie/self-employed worker, supporting the Appellants' argument for Rs.6,000 per month income.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Court uses Pranay Sethi to apply 40% future prospects for a person under 40 and to apply related deduction framework in calculating dependency loss.

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 NO. 3444 OF 2015 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015`** ## **`AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.05.2015 IN OP(MV)NO.293 OF 2009 OF`** ## **`III ADDITIONAL MACT, ALAPPUZHA`** ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SABEENA PLAMOOTTIL THARAYIL, PERIGNALA P.O. 2ABDUL AZEEZ AREEPARAYIL, NIRANAM NORTH P.O. 3ANEESHMOL (MINOR) ANSHAD MANZIL, KOPPRAPPURA, PULLIKKANAKKU P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1SHIJU AYODYA (KRISHNAPURAM VEEDU), MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2REGHU ERNAHAN KANDY HOUSE, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 3THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA 01. BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ``` ``` ON 25.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in O.P(MV)No.293 of 2009 on the file of III[rd] Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. On 28.11.2008 at 2.00 a.m. while deceased Anshad was riding a bicycle through Kollam – Alappuzha National Highway he was knocked down by a tourist bus bearing Registration No.KL-2/B-777 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed on the 3[rd] day at Government Hospital, Kayamkulam. He was a 19 year old labourer earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakh. But learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,93,000/- and hence this appeal. 3. First respondent was the driver, 2[nd] respondent was the owner and the 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the offending tourist bus. 4. The 3[rd] respondent – insurer admitted the policy. But according to them the compensation awarded by the ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 3`** Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence it needs no modification. 5. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent – Insurer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing notional income of the deceased. He was earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, but learned Tribunal fixed it as Rs.4,000/-. He would rely upon the decision _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]**_ to say that, even a Coolie worker was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.6,500/- in the year 2008. 8. Since the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. Since he was aged below 40 and self employed, 40% ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 4`** addition could have been given towards future prospects based on the decision _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680].**_ If so his monthly income could be taken as Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000 + 40%). Since he was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the balance would be Rs.4,200/-. The multiplier applicable is 18. So the compensation for loss of dependency could be assessed as Rs.9,07,200/- (4,200x12x18). After deducting Rs.4,32,000/already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.4,75,200/-. Towards transportation expenses no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Immediately after the accident Sri.Anshad was taken to hospital and he died on the third day and from there his body was taken home. So this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- towards transportation expenses as claimed by the appellants. 9. Towards damage to clothing also no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. This Court is inclined to award Rs.500/- towards damage to clothing. Towards bystander expenses no amount was awarded by the Tribunal though ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 5`** Rs.1,000/- was claimed by the appellants. Sri.Anshad was admitted in hospital on 28.11.2008 and he died on 01.12.2008. So for four days of hospitalization, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- towards bystander expenses as claimed by the appellants. 10. Towards funeral expenses learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Based on _**Pranay Sethi’s**_ case cited supra, appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- and so they will get the balance of Rs.5,000/- as enhanced compensation under the head funeral expenses. 11. Towards loss of love and affection, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/-. Based on _**Pranay Sethi’s**_ case cited supra, appellants 1 and 2 – the parents of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each, which will come to Rs.80,000/-. After deducting Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection, appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as enhancement under the head loss of consortium. 12. Towards loss of estate, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Based on _**Pranay Sethi’s**_ case cited supra, ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 6`** appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/-. So this Court is inclined to award Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate. 13. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. Sri.Anshad died in the accident and so there was no scope for awarding any amount for loss of expectation of life. So Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head is liable to be deducted. 14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads seems to be reasonable, and hence no interference is warranted. 15. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is stated in the table given below:- |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Amounts deducted in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---|---| |Compensation for loss of dependency|Rs.4,32,000/-|Rs.9,07,200/-||Rs.4,75,200/-| |Transportation charge|Nil|Rs.1,000/-||Rs.1,000/-| |Damage to clothing|Nil|Rs.5,00/-||Rs.5,00/-| |Bystander expenses|Nil|Rs.1,000/-||Rs.1,000/-| ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 7`** |Compensation for funeral expenses|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.5,000/-| |---|---|---|---|---| |Compensation for loss of love and afection|Rs.30,000/-|Rs.80,000/-||Rs.50,000/- (to appellants 1 and 2)| |Compensation for loss of consortium||||| |Compensation for Loss of Estate|Nil|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.15,000/-| |Compensation for loss of expectation of life|Rs.10,000/-||Rs.10,000|| |**TOTAL **|||**Rs.10,000 **|**Rs.5,47,700**| |Amount entitled:Rs.5,47,700 – Rs.10,000||||Rs.5,37,700| 16. So the appellants are entitled to get Rs.5,37,700/as enhanced compensation. 17. Third respondent – Insurer is directed to deposit the Rs.5,37,700/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the III[rd] Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ## **`MACA NO. 3444 OF 2015 8`** judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellants in the ratio 45:45:10 after deducting their liabilities if any towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The Appeal is allowed to the extent as above. No order as to costs. ## **`Sd/-`** ``` SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ``` ``` MC/29.7 ```