Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,...

M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2445 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date
2021-11-11
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled to Rs.8,67,000 as enhanced compensation, of which Rs.4,21,500 was already granted by the Tribunal; the balance Rs.4,45,500 is granted as enhanced compensation at the same rate of interest, payable by the insurers in the proportion fixed by the Tribunal from the date of petition until deposit/realisation. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit Rs.3,670 as additional court fee in favor of M.A.C.T. The insurers are further directed to deposit the remaining amount in the appellants’ names in the Tribunal-fixed proportions within two months. On deposit, the appellants are entitled to release the funds.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,67,000. Tribunal’s amount Rs. 4,21,500 retained; balance Rs. 4,45,500 enhanced. Insurers directed to deposit remaining amount in fixed proportion within two months; 3rd respondent to deposit Rs. 3,670 as additional court fee. Deposits to be paid for final release to appellants.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. Kumaran, S/O Thevan, Padathimattom House, Pattimattom P.O., Choorakkode
  • Omana, W/O Kumaran, Padathimattom House, Pattimattom P.O., Choorakkode
  • Minamole, D/O Kumaran, Padathimattom House, Pattimattom P.O., Choorakkode

Respondents

  • Kuriachan K.P., S/O.Paulose, KuttiPizha House, East Marady P.O., Muvattupuzha, PIN - 686 661
  • Basil K.P., S/O.Baby, Kuzhikattill House, Irumpupalam Bhagom, Mannakandom Village, Valara Kara, Adimaly, PIN - 685 561
  • The Branch Manager, United India Co. Ltd., City Branch Office 1, Vettukattil Buildings, 111RD Floor, Jose Jn., M.G. Road, Kochi, PIN - 682 011
  • Shiju E.R., S/O.Ravi Elevenkudy House, Valayamcherangara P.O., Vengola, Perumbavoor, PIN - 683 556
  • Ajo Mohanan, S/O.Mohan an, Kollankudy House, Pattimattom P.O., Choorakkode, PIN - 683 562
  • The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pattimattom Buildings, Aluva, PIN - 682 011

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Smt. Aney Paul

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.K.B.Pradeep
  • • Smt.D.Geetha
  • • Shri.SreeraJ M.D.
  • • Sri.N.S.NajeeB
  • • Smt.K.Sherin Mohan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from the High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) involving legal representatives of Sreejith who died in a motor accident on 24 October 2006. The Tribunal (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha) awarded Rs. 4,21,500 as compensation to the claimants against six respondents including the owner/driver of the bus and the insurer, and the owner/driver of the motorcycle and its insurer. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in determining income and multiplier, urging application of Ramachandrappa (2011) to fix the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 5,000 (instead of Rs. 3,000) and a multiplier of 18 (per Sarla Verma) with a 40% addition for contingencies, resulting in a higher loss of dependency (Rs. 7,56,000) compared to the Tribunal’s figure (Rs. 3,78,000). They invoked Pranay Sethi for additional conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate) and claimed Rs. 40,000 each for loss of parental consortium. Respondents argued against increasing the quantum and urged reductions in some heads following Satinder Kaur. The appeal culminates in an enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,67,000, with the Tribunal’s amount and the enhanced balance to be deposited by the insurers, and related court-fee adjustments. The judgment clarifies liability, computation of compensation, and directs depositions within two months, upholding the appellants’ entitlement to enhanced relief.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Loss of dependency doctrine
  • Multiplier principle (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation)
  • Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
  • Pranay Sethi guidelines for heads of compensation (funeral expenses, loss of estate)
  • Satinder Kaur ratio (United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that the Tribunal erred in the quantum by fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.3,000 instead of Rs.5,000 (as per Ramachandrappa, 2011). They contend that the 18-year multiplier (per Sarla Verma) is appropriate given the deceased’s age, with a 40% addition to income for contingencies; thus Rs.7,000 per month should be used for loss of dependency (Rs.7,56,000 annually for 18 years) and the Tribunal’s Rs.3,78,000 under this head should be enhanced. They seek Pranay Sethi-based enhancements: Rs.10,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.12,500 for loss of estate. The parents are entitled to Rs.40,000 each for loss of parental consortium, totaling Rs.80,000. They also urge adjustments to Rs.30,000 (love and affection) and Rs.5,000 (pain and sufferings) per Satinder Kaur ratio, leading to a larger overall award, culminating in an enhanced total of Rs.8,67,000.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal properly considered negligence, policy coverage, and evidence. They maintain the policy, liability, and that the awards should not be augmented beyond the Tribunal’s findings. They rely on Satinder Kaur’s ratio to cap or adjust certain heads (love and affection, pain and suffering) and oppose excessive increments in income and multiplier, advocating adherence to the Tribunal’s computation and the lower figure, with deposit of the enhanced amount in fixed proportions as directed. They request the court to ensure proper adjustment of court-fees and to direct timely deposit by the insurers, in line with the Tribunal’s proportions.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveUsed to fix monthly income at Rs.5,000 and to determine loss of dependency.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation(2009) 6 SCC 121PositiveGuided the choice of multiplier (18) based on age.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 16 SCC 680PositiveUsed for conventional heads such as funeral expenses and loss of estate.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others2020 (3) KHC 760PositiveRatio followed to reduce heads like love and affection and pain and suffering.

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 M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013 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 A. BADHARUDEEN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 2445 OF 2013`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) 76/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT ``` ## **`CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM`** ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - `1 P.T.KUMARAN, S/O.THEVAN, RESIDING AT PADATHIMATTOM HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., CHOORAKKODE.` - `2 OMANA, W/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PADATHIMATTOM HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., CHOORAKKODE.` - `3 MINAMOLE, D/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PADATHIMATTOM HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., CHOORAKKODE.` ``` BY ADV SMT.ANEY PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 KURIACHAN K.P., S/O.PAULOSE, KUTTIPIZHA HOUSE, EAST MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 661.` - `2 BASIL K.P., S/O.BABY, KUZHIKATTIL HOUSE, IRUMPUPALAM BHAGAM, MANNAKANDOM VILLAGE, VALARA KARA, ADIMALY, PIN - 685 561.` - `3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA CO.LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE 1, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, 111RD FLOOR, JOSE JN., M.G.ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682 011.` - `4 SHIJU E.R., S/O.RAVI ELEVENKUDY HOUSE, VALAYAMCHERANGARA P.O., VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 556.` - `5 AJO MOHANAN, S/O.MOHANAN, KOLLANKUDY HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., CHOORAKODE, PIN - 683 562.` 2 ## **`M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013`** ``` 6THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PATTIMATTOM BUILDINGS, ALUVA, PIN - 682 011. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SMT.D.GEETHA SHRI.SREERAJ M.D. SRI.N.S.NAJEEB SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013 ``` 3 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Legal representatives of one Sreejith, who died consequent to a motor accident occurred on 24.10.2006, are the appellants herein. They being petitioners filed original petition under Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh arraying respondents 1 to 6, the respondents herein as respondents therein. ``` ``` 2.Brief facts of the case: ``` ``` At about 6:30 pm on 24/10/06 while one Ajo Mohanan and the deceased Sreejith were riding on a motorcycle bearing No. KL-17/C 8003 through Kochi - Madurai National Highway from Munnar to Adimali, a private bus bearing registration No.KL-17/D 9922 driven by the 2[nd] respondent came from opposite direction rashly and negligently hit against the motorcycle at Machiplavu and thereby both of them ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` sustained serious injuries. Sri.Sreejith, pillion rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Respondents 1 to 3 are the registered owner, driver and insurer of bus bearing No.KL-17/D 9922. Respondents 4 to 6 are the registered owner, rider and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KL 17/C 8003 involved in the accident. The appellants alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the 2[nd]respondent, driver of the bus and 5[th] respondent, rider of the motorcycle. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondents 1 to 6 jointly and severally. ``` ``` 3.3[rd] respondent, the insurer of the stage carriage bearing no.KL-17/D 9922 and 6[th] respondent, the insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration no.KL-17/C 8003 filed written statement. They admitted the policy in relation to the respective vehicles while disputing negligence ``` 5 ## **`M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013`** ``` as well as the quantum. ``` ``` 4.Tribunal tried the matter along with connected O.P.No.65/07 confining to documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A16. Ext.B1 marked on the side of the contesting respondents. ``` ``` 5.The Tribunal granted Rs.4,21,500/- as compensation. ``` ``` 6.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.5,000/- per month, being plant operator. But the Tribunal fixed the same at Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that following the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income claimed as 5,000/-, as such should have been fixed as the monthly income for assessing compensation. This submission appears to be convincing in view of the ratio inRamachandrappa'scase (supra), where ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013 ``` 6 ``` Rs.4,500/- was fixed as monthly income of a coolie during 2004. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- is fixed as monthly income for calculating 'loss of dependency'. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier taken by the Tribunal as '14' is incorrect since the age of the deceased would be relevant in fixing the multiplier, following the ratio in Sarla Verma v. . Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 This submission is also having force and the proper multiplier is '18' in conformity with the age of the deceased as 21. 40% addition also to be made to the monthly income. Therefore, disability income required to be re-calculated thus, ``` ``` 5,000+40% = 7,000x12x18x50% = 7,56,000/- ``` ``` Out of which, Rs.3,78,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled to Rs.3,78,000/- more under the head of 'loss of disability income'. ``` ## **`M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013`** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 7.The learned counsel for the appellants canvassed increase under conventional heads and the same is not opposed in view of the decision in ``` ``` National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, Rs.10,000/- more granted under the head 'Funeral Expenses' in addition to Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal, Rs.12,500/- more is granted under the head 'Loss of Estate' in addition to Rs.2,500/- granted by the Tribunal. ``` ``` 8.Going by the status of the appellants, appellants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'loss of parental consortium'. Therefore, Rs.80,000/- is granted under this head. ``` ``` 9.The learned counsel for the insurers would submit that Rs.30,000/- granted under the head 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.5,000/- granted under the head 'pain and sufferings', are ``` ## **`M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013`** 8 ``` liable to be reduced following the ratio in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others : 2020 (3) KHC 760. Thus, Rs.35,000/- is reduced. ``` ``` 10.In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is held that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.8,67,000/- as compensation out of which Rs.4,21,500/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of Rs.4,45,500/- is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal payable by the insurers in the proportion fixed by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. ``` ``` 11.The appellants valued the claim at Rs.5,00,000/- and court fee payable is calculated as Rs.4,373/-. In view of grant of Rs.3,67,000/- in excess of the claim, the appellants are bound to deposit Rs.3,670/- as additional court fee. The ``` ## **`M.A.C.A No.2445 of 2013`** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit Rs.3,670/- as additional court fee by a separate cheque in favour of M.A.C.T. ``` ``` 12.The insurers are directed to deposit the remaining amount in the name of the appellants in the proportion fixed by the Tribunal within two months. On deposit, the appellants are entitled to release the same. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE. ``` ``` ww ```