High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-31Disposed of

MACA No. 58 of 2015

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 58 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date: 2022-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of. The court applied the Pranay Sethi framework to allow a 40% addition for future prospects and reworked heads of compensation, including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, while adopting Satinder Kaur’s principle to merge love and affection with loss of consortium (deducting Rs. 25,000 already awarded). The enhanced compensation amounted to Rs. 4,48,630, which the 2nd respondent insurer is directed to deposit with 9% interest from the date of filing till deposit, along with proportionate costs, within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment; the period of 199 days per the CM order is excluded from interest calculations. The appeal is thus disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joseph
Jancy
Priyanka

Respondents

Abdul Latheef
Jineesh Kumar V.P. @ Kuttan S/O Sreedharan Nair V.P.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. BIMALA BABY

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. K.S. Santhi
• Adv. SMT. M. Manju
• Adv. SRI. R. Sudhish
• Adv. Latha Susan Cherian
• Adv. George A. Cherian (K/611/2014)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal challenges the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, for the death of Rose Mary Joseph in a 2012 accident. The petitioners, the deceased’s parents and sister, sought higher compensation under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the Tribunal erred in its computation and did not take into account future income prospects. The Tribunal found negligence by the driver, awarded Rs. 9,48,576 with 8% interest, and allocated amounts across heads such as funeral expenses, loss of dependency, and loss of consortium. The petitioners argued that the deceased, a nursing tutor earning Rs. 8,888 per month, would have had future income growth and that the correct multiplier (17) and a 40% addition for future prospects under the Pranay Sethi framework should be applied, with 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses due to three dependents. They also urged enhancement of funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, while Satinder Kaur’s principle would negate a separate head for love and affection. The High Court accepted the Pranay Sethi framework and Satinder Kaur, recalculated several heads, and directed an enhanced total award and deposit by the insurer with interest, disposing of the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

40% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017)
Loss of love and affection not to be awarded as a separate head when loss of consortium is awarded per Satinder Kaur (AIR 2020 SC 3076)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the deceased Nursing Tutor was earning Rs. 8,888 per month at the time of death and that the Tribunal erred by not applying the 40% future prospects addition under Pranay Sethi. They argue for re-determination of loss of dependency using a 17 multiplier, three dependents with 1/2 personal living expense deduction, and inclusion of future prospects to bring the income to Rs. 12,443 per month, leading to a higher dependency award of Rs. 12,69,206. They urge enhancement of funeral expenses to Rs. 16,500 and inclusion of loss of estate (Rs. 16,500) and loss of consortium (Rs. 88,000 total for two), while noting that Satinder Kaur requires deducting love and affection as a separate head. They seek a net enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,48,630. Finally, they request deposit of the enhanced amount with 9% interest from the petition date and two months’ time for payment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that there was no negligence by the driver (2nd respondent) and challenged the Tribunal’s overall award as excessive. The insurance company admitted the policy but disputed liability and the adequacy of the compensation, arguing that the claim should be re-evaluated with scrutiny of evidence and that the existing award did not warrant such substantial enhancement.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others	[(2017) 16 SCC 680]	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority establishing the 40% addition for future prospects and related enhancements.
Satinder Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	[AIR 2020 SC 3076]	Positive	Applied to justify not awarding a separate head for love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded.

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. 58 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 MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.03.2014 IN OPMV 435/2013 OF MOTOR** **ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** - **1 JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.SCARIYA, KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O., IMG THAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** - **2 JANCY, AGED 51 YEARS W/O.JOSEPH, KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O., IMG THAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** - **3 PRIYYANKA, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.JOSEPH, KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O., IMG THAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV SMT.BIMALA BABY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ABDUL LATHEEF, EYYATHYTH HOSUE, MENBATH, POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.** - **2 JINEESH KUMAR V.P. @ KUTTAN S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR V.P., VARIKKOLI, POYILIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE.** - **3 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NEAR YMCA, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS. K.S.SANTHI SMT.M.MANJU SRI.R.SUDHISH LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN GEORGE A.CHERIAN(K/611/2014)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..2..** ## **JUDGMENT** The claimants are the petitioners in O.P. (MV)No.435/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners have preferred this appeal challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Rose Mary Joseph, in a motor vehicle accident, which happened on 25.02.2012. According to the petitioners, while the deceased was travelling in a bus, the bus hit against an electric post and overturned causing serious injuries to the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. The vehicle was driven by the 2[nd] respondent. 1[St] respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The 1[st] _ex_ respondent remained **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..3..** _parte_ and respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance before the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company filed a written statement admitting the policy. However, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent in causing the accident. It was also contended that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. The petitioners filed the original petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,48,576/- as total compensation along with 8% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost to the petitioners. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as follows: **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..4..** |Sl. No.|The compensation claimed under diferent heads|Amount claimed|Amount allowed| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|5000|1000| |2|Damage to clothing and articles|10000|1000| |3|Funeral expenses|50000|10000| |4|Loss of love and afection|100000|25000| |5|Pain and suferings|100000|5000| |8|Loss of dependency|650000|906576| ||Total||948576| 3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and the 3[rd] petitioner is the sister of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are totally inadequate. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the deceased was a Nursing Tutor in a Nursing College at Kozhikode and was earning an amount of **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..5..** Rs.8,888/- per month at the time of her death. On the basis of Exts.X1 and X2 produced from the institution where the deceased was working and after examining PW1, the Administrator of the Hospital, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,888/-. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,06,576/towards loss of dependency. However, the Tribunal did not add future prospects of increase in income while calculating the compensation for loss of dependency. 5. As per the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] 40% can be added towards future prospects. By adding 40% of the income towards future prospects, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,443/- [8,888 + 3,555]. The multiplier to be adopted is '17'. There are three dependents (father, mother and sister). The deceased **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..6..** was not married and ½ has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the compensation for loss of dependency is re-worked as Rs.12,69,206/- [12,443 x 12 x 17 x ½ ]. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.9,06,576/-, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.3,62,630/** - [12,69,206 - 9,06,576] under the head loss of dependency. 6. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Pranay Sethi** (supra),_ the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000 + 10% hike for every three years). Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.6,500/** - (16,500 -10,000) under the said head. 7. No amount is awarded under the head loss of estate. Going by the decision reported in _**Pranay Sethi**_ **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..7..** (supra), the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000 + 10% hike for every three years). The petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.16,500/-** under the head loss of estate. 8. No amount has been awarded under the head loss of consortium. Following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% hike for every three years) each for compensation for loss of consortium. Accordingly, towards compensation for loss of consortium, the petitioners (father and mother only) are entitled for Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2). 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 justification in awarding compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head. Since the petitioners are entitled for Rs.88,000/- **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..8..** towards loss of consortium, no further amount is to be awarded under the head loss of love and affection. Therefore, **Rs.25,000/-** already awarded under the head loss of love and affection has to be deducted from the total compensation. 9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are re-worked as follows: |Sl. No.|The compensation claimed under diferent heads|Amount allowed|Amount modifed|Diferenc e| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|1,000|--|--| |2|Damage to clothing and articles|1,000|--|--| |3|Funeral expenses|10,000|16,500|6,500| |4|Loss of love and afection|25,000|--|-25,000| |5.|Loss of consortium|--|88,000|88,000| |6|Pain and suferings|5,000|--|--| |7|Loss of|9,06,576|12,69,206|3,62,630| ## **MACA NO. 58 OF 2015 ..9..** ||dependency|||| |---|---|---|---|---| |8|Loss of estate|--|16,500|16,500| ||Total|9,48,576|13,90,206|4,48,630| 10. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.4,48,630/-** (Rupees four lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred and thirty only). The 2[nd] respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit 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 compensation, the petitioners will not be entitled for interest for a period of 199 days in the light of the order dated 19.01.2022 in C.M.Application No.1/2015 in the above appeal. The appeal is disposed of. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB/01/06/2022