High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-22The MACA is allowed; compensation enhanced to R...

MACA No.1336 of 2012

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 1336 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-08-22
Court Decision / Holding: MACA is allowed. The compensation is enhanced as per the Tribunal’s recalculation: loss of dependency Rs.7,14,000; transport Rs.3,000; funeral Rs.15,000; medical Rs.1,27,376; pain and suffering Rs. Nil; love and affection Rs. Nil; loss of consortium Rs.80,000; loss of estate Rs.15,000; total Rs.9,54,376; enhanced amount Rs.5,80,000. Interest on the original Tribunal amount at the rate directed in the impugned award; interest on the enhanced amount at 8% from the date of petition; NEFT/RTGS transfer within one month upon furnishing bank details; if not, interest on enhanced amount continues as ordered. The insurer shall deposit as directed, with set-off for any prior payment.
Final Disposition: The MACA is allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.9,54,376 with enhanced amount Rs.5,80,000; interest as directed; NEFT/RTGS payment on bank details within one month; otherwise interest terms apply.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bhaskar an, s/o Gopal an, aged 66 years, Chumatharaparambil House, SDPY Road, Palluruthy, Kochi-6
Santha, w/o Bhaskaran, Chumatharaparambil House, SDPY Road, Palluruthy, Kochi-6
Ajitha, d/o Bhaskaran, Chumatharaparambil House, SDPY Road, Palluruthy, Kochi-6
Anil Kumar, s/o Bhaskaran, Chumatharaparambil House, SDPY Road, Palluruthy, Kochi-6
Abhilash, s/o Bhaskaran, Chumatharaparambil House, SDPY Road, Palluruthy, Kochi-6

Respondents

Aboobacker V.M., Vadanakathu House, Vennala P.O., Kochi-682032
Nazarkhan A. Noushad, S/O Abdullah Khan, House No.1/783, Fort Kochi, Kochi-682001
The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch No.1, Wisdom College Building, Chittoor Road, Kochi-682016

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri C. Arun Prasanth
• Sri A.S. Brijesh
• Smt. Roopa Ramachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal, heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, concerns enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in O.P.(MV) No.1826/2006, following the death of the injured in a road accident on 07.02.2005. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who died after four years of treatment. The court allowable grounds include the proper determination of the deceased’s notional income, future prospects, and the correct multiplier, guided by Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal had fixed a monthly income of Rs. 3,500; the High Court, applying Ramachandrappa, held the notional income for 2005 at Rs. 5,000. The court adopted a 40% addition for future prospects in line with Pranay Sethi and Sarala Verma, and deducted 50% for personal expenses since the claimant was a bachelor. It recalculated the dependency, revised the multiplier from 9 to 17, and granted consortium to the parents (Rs.40,000 each) while striking off love and affection and pain-suffering awards in light of Kehlon. Funeral expenses were enhanced to Rs.15,000 and loss of estate Rs.15,000. The total compensation became Rs.9,54,376, with an enhanced amount of Rs.5,80,000. The insurer must pay interest on the original amount at the Tribunal rate and 8% on the enhanced amount from the petition date, with NEFT/RTGS transfer within a month after furnishing bank details.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa notional income doctrine (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.)
40% future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi and Sarala Verma)
Deduction of 50% for personal expenses for a bachelor
Multiplier rule (correct multiplier 17)
Consortium to parents (Rs. 40,000 each) and removal of love and affection and pain and suffering (per Kehlon)
Funeral expenses and loss of estate adjustments

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in notional income, future prospects, and multiplier calculations. They urged Rs.5,000/month as notional income (per Ramachandrappa) for 2005, 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi/Sarala Verma), with 50% deduction for a bachelor, and a multiplier of 17 rather than 9. They sought consortium to parents, removal of love/affection and pain/suffering awards (per Kehlon), and higher funeral and estate losses. They pressed for total compensation around Rs.9.5 lakh and emphasized timely NEFT/RTGS transfer with 8% interest on enhanced amounts.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s award was just and should be sustained; they relied on the evidence for the original income and multiplier, opposed large enhancements, and urged adherence to the Tribunal’s framework, subject to any permissible adjustments under established precedents.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Used to determine notional income for 2005 (Rs.5,000/month) in line with Ramachandrappa.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]	Positive	Applied 40% future prospects (with 50% deduction for a bachelor) per Pranay Sethi.
Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]	Positive	Affirms 40% addition for future prospects in the calculation.
Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kehlon	(Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2021)	Positive	Supports excluding pain and suffering in death cases as part of the award.

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.1336 of 2012 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 C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944** **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.05.2011 IN O.P.(MV) NO.1826/2006 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 6:** - **1 BHASKARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 66 YEARS, CHUMATHARAPARAMBILHOUSE, SDPY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.** - **2 SANTHA, W/O.BHASKARAN, CHUMATHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SDPY ROAD,PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.** - **3 AJITHA, D/O.BHASKARAN, CHUMATHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SDPY ROAD,PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.** - **4 ANIL KUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, CHUMATHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SDPY ROAD,PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.** **5 ABHILASH, S/O.BHASKARAN, CHUMATHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SDPY ROAD,PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH SRI.A.S.BRIJESH SMT.ROOPA RAMACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** - **1 ABOOBACKER V.M., VADAKENATH HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682 032.** - **2 NAZARKHAN A. NOUSHAD, S/O.ABDULLA KHAN, HOUSE NO.1/783, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI – 682 001.** -2- ## **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** - **3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH NO.1, WISDOM COLLGE BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD,KOCHI-682 016.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** **----------------------------------------** **MACA No.1336 of 2012** **---------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The legal heirs of the injured, who succumbed to the injuries after prolonged treatment for a period of four years, are the appellants herein. The claim was originally preferred by the injured. Pursuant to his death, his legal heirs got impleaded. In this appeal, the appellants challenge the award dated 11.05.2011 in O.P.(MV) No.1826/2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, essentially on the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company. Perused the records. -4- **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the 1[st] petitioner in O.P(MV) was a welder at the time of accident. However, no proof of the said avocation was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reckoned the monthly income at Rs.3,500/-. However, this Court finds that going by the index specified in **Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC** **236]** , the notional income pertaining to the year 2005 (the accident took place on 07.02.2005) is Rs.5,000/-, which is liable to be reckoned. 4. The second ground is that no amount has been granted towards future prospects. Going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT** **662 (SC)]** and **Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** , the 1[st] petitioner, who was aged 29 years at the time of accident, is entitled to 40% of the notional -5- ## **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** income reckoned towards future prospects. This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is liable to be accepted. The 1[st] petitioner being a bachelor, one half of the amount is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses. 5. The third ground is with respect to the multiplier applied. Going by the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the correct multiplier which ought to have been applied is 17, whereas the Tribunal reckoned the multiplier at 9, which also is liable to be corrected. **==> picture [391 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** consortium. It is indisputed that the victim died as direct consequence of the accident, although after prolonged treatment for 4 years. Going by the judgment in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.** **Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** the parents of the victim are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly, appellants -6- **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation under the head consortium. Appellants 3 to 5 being siblings are not entitled to consortium. Simultaneous with this, it requires to be noticed that compensation on account of love and affection granted by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- has to be obliterated. Similarly, compensation on account of pain and suffering is not liable to be granted in cases of death as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kehlon (Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2021]** . 7. The funeral expenses granted at Rs.5,000/by Tribunal is liable to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Similarly, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate. 8. Resultantly, this MACA is allowed and the amount payable to the petitioners/appellants towards compensation is recalculated as indicated in the table below: -7- ## **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** |Sl No|Head of claim|Amount awarded|Total amount after enhancement in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|1,89,000|* 7,14,000| |2|Transport expenses|3,000|3,000| |3|Funeral expenses|5,000|15,000| |4|Medical expenses|1,27,376|1,27,376| |5|Compensation for pain and sufferings|30,000|Nil| |6|Compensation for loss of love and affection|20,000|Nil| |7|Loss of consortium|Nil|80,000 (40,000 x 2)| |8|Loss of estate|Nil|15,000| ||Total|3,74,376|9,54,376| ||Amount enhanced =**Rs.5,80,000/- **(9,54,376 - 3,74,376)||| * (5000x40/100)= (2000+5000)x12-1/2x17 = 7,14,000 The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, -8- **MACA NO. 1336 OF 2012** the same shall be granted set off. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest on enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** bpr