High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-02The appeal is allowed as above.

MACA No. 348 of 2016

Case / Petition Number:MACA 348/2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Judgment Date: 2022-06-02
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed as above.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N. S/O. NARAYANA MENON
GILEENA G.MENON D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N
LIGEENA G MENON D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N
NILEENA G MENON D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N

Respondents

THE HEAD MASTER, MUSLIM UP. SCHOOL, MYLOOR PALLRIMANGALAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 671
ALI P.M S/O. MYTHEEN, PALIYATH HOUSE, MYLOOR, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 671
THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
• Advs.

Counsels for Respondents

• SRi.A.R.GEORGE-R3

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal under MACA 348/2016 challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha’s award in OP(MV) No.147/2013 for the death of Latha Gopalakrishnan, a 44-year-old school bus helper who died after an accident on 9 November 2012. The petitioners (the deceased’s legal heirs) contend the Tribunal erred in quantifying compensation. Respondents include the bus owner, the driver, and the insurer, who pleaded negligence by the deceased and raised policy and license objections. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs. 15,82,039 across heads such as loss of dependency, pain and suffering, medical expenses, funeral, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and loss of love and affection. The petitioners seek enhancement. The High Court re- evaluates the compensation using established precedents: Ramachandrappa for notional income, Sarla Verma for 1/4 deduction of personal expenses, and Pranay Sethi for head adjustments including loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. It also applies Satinder Kaur to discount pain and suffering and the head of love and affection. After recalculation, enhanced compensation is fixed at Rs. 5,28,800 with 9% interest and costs, to be deposited within two months, with a 60-day delay exclusion as per a prior order; the appeal is allowed accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income for non-permanent workers (Ramachandrappa)
1/4 deduction for personal and living expenses (Sarla Verma)
Loss of consortium with Pranay Sethi framework (Pranay Sethi)
No compensation for pain and suffering under certain circumstances (Satinder Kaur)
Double-head prevention: no separate award for love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded (Satinder Kaur)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in under-assessing the deceased’s income. They urge fixation of notional income at Rs. 8,000 per month (based on a private school helper’s wages) with 25% future prospects, leading to a higher loss of dependency. With four dependants, 1/4 deduction for personal living expenses should apply (Sarla Verma). The multiplier should reflect a longer horizon than used by the Tribunal (14). They seek re-calibration of loss of consortium and reject the ‘love and affection’ head as duplicative, relying on Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur to refine all related heads. They also urge that pain and suffering be considered under the circumstances, and argue enhanced funeral and estate amounts per Pranay Sethi. They highlight insurer-liability and policy-licence issues to justify a greater relief to the claimants.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the accident occurred due to the deceased’s negligent act, disputing age and earnings and asserting non-permanent employment. The insurer maintains the driver did not possess a valid license, invoking policy conditions and alleging the claim is excessive. The respondents stress that the driver’s negligence was not established beyond doubt and question the quantum of compensation under several heads. They emphasize that the Tribunal’s findings of negligence and liability should be preserved in part, and they call for a conservative re-calibration of damages, maintaining that substantial adjustments should be grounded in the facts and governing precedents without exceeding just compensation.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236; AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used to justify notional income for non-permanent workers (8,000/month basis) and future prospects assessment.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp.	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Applied deduction of 1/4 from income for personal and living expenses.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi and others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Guides loss of consortium and funeral/estate head enhancements; 10% increase concept for every three years.
Satinder Kaur v United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	(AIR) 2020 SC 3076	Positive	Used to disallow separate compensation for pain and suffering and to prune love/affection head when loss of consortium is considered.

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. 348 of 2016 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 2[ND] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 348 OF 2016`** ## **`AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 147/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS`** ## **`TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA`** ## **`APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS:`** - `1 GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N. S/O. NARAYANA MENON, RESIDING AT KUDIAKATHOTTU HOUSE, ELAMBRA, NELLIKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM` - `2 GILEENA G.MENON D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N, RESIDING AT KUDIAKATHOTTU HOUSE, ELAMBRA, NELLIKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM` - `3 LIGEENA G MENON D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N, RESIDING AT KUDIAKATHOTTU HOUSE, ELAMBRA, NELLIKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM.` - `4 NILEENA G MENON D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN K.N,RESIDING AT KUDIAKATHOTTU HOUSE, ELAMBRA, NELLIKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM` ``` BY ADVS. ``` - `SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE HEAD MASTER, MUSLIM UP. SCHOOL, MYLOOR PALLRIMANGALAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 671` - `2 ALI P.M S/O. MYTHEEN, PALIYATH HOUSE, MYLOOR, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 671` - `3 THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691` ``` BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE-R3 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 348/2016 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.147/2013. The parties herein are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Latha Gopalakrishnan who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 9.11.2012 at Pulikunneppady. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as Helper in a school bus. On 9.11.2012, while the deceased Latha Gopalakrishnan was attempting to enter into the bus after alighting the students, the second respondent-driver of the bus moved the vehicle forward and the deceased fell down on the road and the rear wheel of the bus ran over her left leg and sustained serious injuries. She was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam and while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on 16.01.2013. The first respondent is the owner of the bus and the third respondent is its insurer. The petitioners filed the claim petition seeking an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of MACA 348/2016 3 Latha Gopalakrishnan. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed written statement contending that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and they disputed the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. The third respondent-insurance company filed written statement admitting the existence of valid insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle. However, they contended that the first respondent-driver was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident and there was violation of conditions of policy and that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased alone. They also contended that the amount claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the second respondent-driver and that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and awarded an amount of Rs.15,82,039/- as total compensation for the death of deceased Latha Gopalakrishnan under the following heads:- ||**Head of claim**|**Amount claimed** **(in rupees)**|**Amount awarded** **(in rupees)**|| |---|---|---|---|---| MACA 348/2016 4 |Compensation for loss of expected future earnings/loss of dependency|15,00,000|6,55,200| |---|---|---| |Pain and sufferings|2,00,000|50,000| |Bystander expenses|Nil|10,500| |Extra nourishment charges|Nil|8,500| |Transportation charges|10,000|5,000| |Medical treatment expenses|7,50,000|6,17,839| |Funeral and allied expenses|15,000|25,000| |Loss of estate|25,000|10,000| |Loss of consortium|50,000|1,00,000| |Loss of love and affection|2,00,000|1,00,000| |**Total**||**15,82,039**| 5. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred this appeal. 6. The deceased was aged 44 years at the time of the accident and she was working as Helper in a school bus. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- on the basis of MACA 348/2016 5 salary certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school. The petitioners claimed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-. It is to be noted that the deceased was working in a private school and her employment was not of permanent nature. Taking into account the nature of employment of the deceased, her salary can be fixed _**v**_ **.** notionally. Following the dictum laid down in **Ramachandrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236: AIR 2011 SC 2951],** the monthly salary of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,000/-. Considering the nature of employment, only 25% can be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed as Rs.10,000/-. The deceased is survived by four dependants. Therefore, ¼ of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in terms of the decision in **Sarla Verma** _**v**_ **. Delhi Transport Corporation** [2009 (6) SCC 121]. The multiplier applicable is ‘14’. Therefore, compensation towards loss of dependancy is re-calculated as Rs.12,60,000/- (10000x12x14x3/4). After deducting an amount of Rs.6,55,000/- already awarded by the MACA 348/2016 6 Tribunal, the petitioners will be entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.6,04,800/-** under the said head. 7. Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the light of the decision in **National Insurance** _**v**_ **Company Limited . Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with 10% increase for every three years. Accordingly, compensation for loss of consortium is re-calculated as Rs.1,76,000/(44,000x4) and after deducting Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioners are awarded Rs.76,000/- as enhanced compensation under the said head. 8. When compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no justification in awarding compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head [ **United India Insurance Co.Ltd.** _**v**_ **Satinder Kaur (** AIR 2020 SC 3076)]. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any amount under the head loss of love and affection and an amount of **Rs** . **1,00,000/-** awarded under the said has to be deducted. 9. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded an MACA 348/2016 7 amount of Rs.50,000/-. True that, the deceased has sustained serious injuries and was admitted in the hospital for 68 days. However, in the light of the decision in **Satinder Kaur** , no amount can be awarded to the petitioners under the said head. Therefore, the said amount has to be deducted from the total compensation. 10. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-, whereas, in the light of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the petitioners are entitled to get only an amount of Rs.15,000/- plus 10% enhancement in every three years. Accordingly, the compensation towards funeral expenses is re-fixed as Rs.16,500/and an amount of **Rs.8,500/-** (Rs.25,000-16,500) has to be deducted under the said head. 11. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. The petitioners are entitled to get Rs.16,500/- under the said head in the light of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). Therefore, an enhanced amount of **Rs.6,500/-** (Rs.16,500-10000) is awarded towards the said head. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced MACA 348/2016 8 compensation of **Rs.5,28,800/-** (604800+76000-100000-500008500+6500) with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The insurance company shall deposit the amount along with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While calculating the interest on the enhanced amount, the period of delay in filing the appeal (60 days delay) shall be excluded in terms of the order dated 18.03.2020 in this appeal. The appeal is allowed as above. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** spc/