High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal dismissed; Tribunal's award upheld; bala...
MACA No. 3545 of 2016
Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 3545 of 2016
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Murali Purushothaman
- Judgment Date
- 2021-12-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeal is dismissed. The High Court refuses to interfere with the Tribunal's compensation award and directs the 3rd respondent insurer to deposit the balance amount as per the award within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award upheld; balance amount to be deposited by insurer within two months.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Kerala State Insurance Department
Respondents
- Renni
- Arun
- Amulya
- Athulya
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Mathew John K. (Adv.)
- • Domson J. Vattakuzhy (Adv.)
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) filed by the Kerala State Insurance Department, the insurer and 3rd respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 444 of 2013, challenging an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, on 28 December 2012 relating to a fatal road accident that occurred near Karattu, Thodupuzha. The jeep from Mariyapuram Grama Panchayat, driven by Shaji, collided with a parked lorry, causing Shaji to die on 31 December 2012 and injuring another passenger. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,18,580 with 9% interest from the petition date and costs, distributing the amount across heads such as hospital expenses, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and loss of dependency, using a monthly income of Rs. 9,100 and a multiplier of 14. The insurer argues the compensation is excessive, particularly challenging funeral expenses, the heads of pain and suffering, and the double counting of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection; it also contests the 30% addition for future prospects and the income fixation. The High Court, applying Pranay Sethi and related jurisprudence, ultimately dismisses the appeal, not interfering with the Tribunal’s award, and directs the insurer to deposit the balance within two months from receipt of this judgment.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No double counting in heads of compensation (avoid awarding separate amounts for loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded, as per Satinder Kaur and related authorities).
- Pranay Sethi guidelines for computation of compensation, including future prospects, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
- Guidance from N. Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd (2021) 6 KHC 163 on loss of consortium and future prospects.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur (AIR 2020 SC 3076) on consolidation of heads and avoiding duplicative awards.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant insurer contends that the Tribunal's total compensation of Rs. 17,18,580 is excessive. It challenges the headnotes, especially funeral expenses as inflated, and argues against liability for pain and suffering. It asserts that there is double counting in loss of consortium (Rs. 1,00,000) and loss of love and affection (Rs. 50,000) and that the deduction and adjustment of these heads is improper. It disputes the 30% addition for future prospects, arguing that for a daily wage driver the correct addition should be 25%. It questions the income fixation at Rs. 9,100 per month and the multiplier of 14, and contends that future prospects, if applicable, should be calculated with a reduced income base (Rs. 11,375) leading to a lower loss of dependency. Relying on Pranay Sethi and related judgments, it seeks recalibration of the award, including separate treatment of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and other conventional heads.
Contentions of Respondents
The judgment records the insurer's contentions in detail but does not delineate explicit, separate arguments advanced by the respondents beyond opposing the Tribunal’s award piecemeal. The respondents did not file a cross-appeal; the High Court’s decision rests on the insurer’s submissions and the application of established jurisprudence (Pranay Sethi, Satinder Kaur) to the view that the Tribunal's award should not be interfered with.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. | (2017) 16 SCC 680 | Positive | Cited and applied as the authoritative framework for calculating compensation, including future prospects, loss of estate, and related heads under the Pranay Sethi guidelines. |
| N. Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd | (2021) 6 KHC 163 | Positive | Cited for its ratio regarding loss of consortium and future prospects and the appropriate adjustments under the evolving jurisprudence. |
| Satinder Kaur v United India Insurance Co. Ltd | (AIR 2020 SC 3076) | Positive | Cited to support the principle that there is no need for a separate head for loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded, preventing double counting. |
Diagnostic Tool
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. 3545 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943**
## **MACA NO. 3545 OF 2016**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 444/2013 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA / I ADDITIONAL MACT,**
## **THODUPUZHA**
## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P (MV):**
**THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, MANAKKADU ROAD, THODUPUZHA.**
**BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.M.FAISAL**
## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P(M.V):**
|**1**|**RENNI,**|
|---|---|
||**W/O. LATE SHAJI,**|
||**MARIPPURATHU HOUSE,**|
||**KUTHIRAKADU BHAGAM,**|
||**MARIAPURAM KARA,**|
||**THANKAMONY VILLAGE.**|
|**2**|**ARUN**|
||**S/O. LATE SHAJI,**|
||**MARIPPURATHU HOUSE,**|
||**KUTHIRAKADU BHAGAM,**|
||**MARIAPURAM KARA,**|
||**THANKAMONY VILLAGE (MINOR DATE OF BIRTH :**|
||**07/03/2010).**|
|**3**|**AMULYA**|
||**D/O. LATE SHAJI,**|
||**MARIPPURATHU HOUSE,**|
||**KUTHIRAKADU BHAGAM,**|
||**MARIAPURAM KARA,**|
||**THANKAMONY VILLAGE (MINOR DATE OF BIRTH :**|
||**15/05/2004).**|
|**4**|**ATHULYA**|
||**D/O. LATE SHAJI,**|
||**MARIPPURATHU HOUSE,**|
||**KUTHIRAKADU BHAGAM,**|
||**MARIAPURAM KARA,**|
||**THANKAMONY VILLAGE**|
||**(MINOR DATE OF BIRTH : 09/06/2006).**|
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**2**
**5 MARIAKUTTY W/O. JOSEPH, MARIPPURATHU HOUSE, KUTHIRAKADU BHAGAM, MARIAPURAM KARA, THANKAMONY VILLAGE. (2ND,3RD AND 4TH MINOR PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE 1ST PETITIONER) RENNI, W/O. LATE SHAJI.**
**BY ADV SRI. MATHEW JOHN K. SRI. DOMSON J. VATTAKUZHY**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**3**
## **JUDGMENT**
This is an appeal preferred by the Kerala State Insurance Department, the 3[rd] respondent in O.P.(MV) No.444 of 2013. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
2. The petitioners are the dependents of deceased Shaji, who was working as a driver of the jeep belonging to the Mariyapuram Grama Panchayat. When the said jeep bearing Registration No. KL-6E4499 was proceeding to Thiruvananthapuram from Mariyapuram on 28.12.2012, the jeep collided with a lorry bearing Registration No. KL-16E-5849 which was parked on the side of a road at a place called Karattu. Shaji and another passenger in the jeep sustained injuries. Shaji succumbed to the injuries at hospital on
31.12.2012. The petitioners claimed a total
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**4**
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Shaji in the accident.
3.The 1[st] respondent was the driver of the jeep at the time of accident and the 3[rd] respondent is its insurer. The 1[st] respondent, the driver of the jeep filed a written statement contending that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The 3[rd] respondent, the Kerala State Insurance Department filed a written statement admitting that the vehicle was insured with them at the time of the accident, but denying negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. It was contended that the amount claimed as compensation is exorbitant.
4. The Tribunal, on the basis of Ext.A1 FIR, Ext. A2 final report and Ext.A4 scene mahazar, found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.17,18,580/-
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**5**
as total compensation for the death of Shaji with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation together with costs. The 3rd respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. The amount awarded as compensation under different heads is as
## follows:-
|Sl.<br>No|Particulars of<br>Claim|Amount<br>Claimed|Compensat<br>ion<br>determined|Particulars|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|1|Transportation<br>to hospital and<br>return to home|25,000|15,000|-|
|2|Extra<br>nourishment|2,500|500|-|
|3|Damage to<br>clothing and<br>articles|500|500|-|
|4|Hospital and<br>treatment<br>expenses|20,000|11,000|(Medical bills<br>produced are<br>for a total sum<br>of Rs.10,079)|
|5|Bystander's<br>expenses|1,000|1,000|-|
|6|Funeral<br>expenses|50,000|25,000||
|7|Other incidental|10,000|-||
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**6**
||expenses||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|8|Compensation<br>for pain and<br>sufferings|25,000|25,000|-|
|9|Loss of<br>consortium to<br>the first<br>petitioner|1,00,000|1,00,000|-|
|10|Compensation<br>for the loss of<br>love and<br>affection, care,<br>guidance and<br>future<br>assistance|4,00,000|50,000|-|
|11|Compensation<br>for the loss of<br>dependency|15,28,800|14,90,580<br>(9100x12x14x130x3/400)||
|12|Compensation<br>for the loss of<br>estate|1,00,000|||
|13|Compensation<br>for the loss of<br>future<br>prospects|4,58,640|||
||Total|26,31,440<br>Claim<br>limited to<br>20,00,000|17,18,580||
5. The 3[rd] respondent insurer has filed this appeal mainly contending that the amount awarded as
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**7**
compensation is excessive and exorbitant. Sri. K.M. Faisal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3[rd] respondent insurer points out that the amount of compensation awarded under the head funeral expenses is excessive. Sri. K.M. Faisal also contends that the petitioners are not entitled for any amount under the head pain and sufferings. It is also contended that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the head loss of consortium and a further amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection and the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation under both the heads. It is also contended that the income fixed by the Tribunal for arriving at the compensation for loss of dependency is without any basis.
6. The deceased Shaji was a driver working in the
Grama Panchayat on daily wage basis. Going by Ext. A8
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**8**
certificate issued by the Panchayat, the monthly income of deceased Shaji is Rs.9,100/-. The Tribunal has therefore taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,100/- and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Since, the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident, the multiplier taken is 14. The deceased had 5 dependents and the deductions towards personal expenses shall be ¼. The addition towards future prospects taken by the Tribunal is 30%. Accordingly, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation for loss of dependency and loss of future prospects as Rs.14,90,580/- (9100x12x14x130x3/400).As per Ext. A 8 certificate issued from the Panchayat, the deceased Shaji was a driver engaged by the Panchayat on daily wages. Therefore, the addition towards future prospects can only be 25% and the income available for calculation will be Rs.11,375 (9100+2275). Therefore,
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**9**
the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 14,33,250/(11,375x12x14x3/4) as compensation for loss of dependency and loss of future prospects. An amount of **Rs. 57,330/-** is to be deducted from the said head. 7.The Tribunal included the compensation for loss of estate also under the head loss of dependency /loss of future prospects and no separate compensation was awarded for loss of estate. The compensation for loss of estate has to be dealt with under a separate head. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Limited** _**v.**_ **Pranay Sethi and Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the compensation payable under the conventional head of loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/-. The same has to be enhanced on percentage basis, at the rate of 10%, in a span of every three years. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**10**
an amount of **Rs.16,500/-** as compensation under the head loss of estate.
8.The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Going by the principles laid down in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the petitioners are entitled to only Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. With an enhancement of 10% for every 3 years, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,500/-(15000+1500) towards compensation for funeral expenses. Therefore, the excess amount of **Rs.8,500/-** [Rs.25,000-Rs.16,500] has to be deducted from the compensation awarded under the head funeral expenses.
9. The learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioners are not entitled for any amount towards compensation for pain and suffering. The deceased Shaji succumbed to the injuries after 3 days
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**11**
of the accident while undergoing treatment at hospital. Under such circumstances, the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering can be re-fixed as Rs. 10,000/- and an amount of **Rs.15000/** (Rs.25,000- Rs.10,000/) has to be deducted under the head pain and suffering.
10. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of consortium/loss of love and affection. Following the ratio of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) and **N.Jayasree and others** _**v**_ **. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd** (2021 (6) KHC 163), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with 10% increase for every 3 years. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of **Rs.2,20,000/-** (44,000x5) under the head loss of consortium. The petitioners are entitled to be awarded an additional
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**12**
amount of **Rs.70,000/-** (2,20,000-1,50,000) towards compensation for loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd.** _**v.**_ **Satinder Kaur** [AIR 2020 SC 3076] that when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no need to award compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head.
11. On the basis of the findings as above, an amount of **Rs.80,830** (57,330+8600+15,000) is to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal; whereas the petitioners are entitled to be awarded **Rs. 86,500/-** (16,500+70,000) as enhanced compensation. The petitioners have not preferred any cross appeal. In the said circumstances, I am not interfering with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Pursuant to the interim order dated 21.06.2018
**M.A.C.A NO.3545 OF 2016**
**13**
passed by this Court an amount of Rs.8,59,290/- has been deposited by the 3[rd] respondent before the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent shall deposit the balance amount as per the award within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
**Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE**
SPR