High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeals allowed; enhanced compensation for both...
MACA Nos. 54 of 2015 & 3220 of 2014, High Court of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 54 of 2015; MACA No. 3220 of 2014
Neutral Citation:/null
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. Jayachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2022-12-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeals allowed. The impugned award is modified: for MACA 54/2015, notional income increased to Rs.6,000 with 40% future prospects; conventional heads recalibrated; certain heads (including pain and suffering) restricted as per Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kahlon. For MACA 3220/2014, similar recalibration with corrected multiplier (15) and 50% self-expense deduction; total compensation increased to Rs.8,34,500. Liability remains on the owner, driver and insurer; respondents 4-6 exonerated. The Insurance Company is directed to pay enhanced amounts with interest at 5% from the date of petition, with NEFT/RTGS transfer after bank details are provided within stipulated timelines; any already paid amounts to be set-off. The appeals also allow impleading the additional 7th appellant. Bench/Disposition: Single Judge; Final disposition: Appeals allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; liability fixed on the driving and insurance entities; NEFT/RTGS payment; neutral citation: null.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals allowed; enhanced compensation for both MACA Nos. 54/2015 and 3220/2014; liability fixed on owner, driver and insurer; exoneration of others; payment of enhanced amounts with 5% interest from petition date; NEFT/RTGS transfer after bank details; impleading of additional 7th appellant confirmed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Nithya
- Anamika
- Sundaran
- Leelavathi
- Shakuntala
- Sarojini
- Madhavan
- Vasudevan
- Nithin Kumar
- Santha
- Savithri
- Jagadeswari
Respondents
- P.S Veeran
- Rajeev
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Perumbavoor
- Sony Jose
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Perumbavoor
- Ibrahim S/o. Kather
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri Tony Thomas (Inchiparambil)
- • Sri P. Thomas Geeverghese
- • Sri V.S. Mansoor
- • Sri PMM Najeeb Khan
- • Smt. Sarah Salvvy
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri P.G. Ganappan
- • Sri Lal George
Case Synopsis & Summary
This appeal concerns two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arising from a common Tribunal award in OP(MV) Nos. 267/2008 and 268/2008, relating to deaths of Shaji (driver) and Jayanandan (pillion) in a road accident on 29.11.2007 caused by a minibus/lorry. The Tribunal’s award, dated 30.08.2014, was challenged by the appellants (legal heirs of the deceased) on quantum, while the insurers/owners defended the award. The Kerala High Court, presided by Justice C. Jayachandran, on 9 December 2022, re-examines the notional income, future prospects and conventional heads of compensation under the framework set by leading authorities such as Ramchandrappa and Pranay Sethi. The petitioners argue for a higher notional income (Rs.6,000/month instead of Rs.3,500) and 40% future prospects; they also seek higher sums under loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium, while challenging punitive heads like pain and suffering (and love and affection) in certain scenarios, applying the Oriental Insurance ruling to strike out some heads. The court alters the computation for two MACA numbers: in MACA 54/2015 (Shaji’s death) the total increased from Rs.7,38,000 to Rs.14,20,100 with an enhanced amount of Rs.6,82,100; in MACA 3220/2014 (Sarojini et al.) the total rose from Rs.2,31,000 to Rs.8,34,500 with an enhanced amount of Rs.6,03,500. The court also allows impleading the additional 7th appellant, and directs liability to remain on the owner, driver and insurer, while exonerating others. Final directions include payment of enhanced amounts with 5% interest from the petition date, payment through NEFT/RTGS after birth of bank details, and related set-offs if sums are already paid.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Notional income doctrine (Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.)
- 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi)
- 50% deduction towards personal expenses (as used in dependency calculations)
- Restriction/abolition of certain heads of compensation (Pain and Suffering) per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon (AIR 2021 SC 3913)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred by using a low notional income (Rs.3,500) for the deceased, ignoring Ramchandrappa’s directive that the notional income for 2007 be Rs.6,000 and applying 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi. They seek higher conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium), and an uplift (10%) for several heads, while arguing that love and affection and pain-and-suffering should be re-evaluated or obliterated in light of Odisha/Kahlon jurisprudence when death is involved. They urge re-computation of dependency, with appropriate multiplier (age-based), increased loss of dependency, and proper deduction for personal expenses, culminating in a significantly enhanced total and liability on the owner-driver-insurance trio. They also seek admission of an additional 7th appellant in MACA 54/2015.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents, represented by insurers, contend that the Tribunal’s award should be maintained as the baseline for compensation; they stress adherence to the evidence before the Tribunal, caution against excessive enhancement without supportive evidence, and argue for principled application of the notional income and deductions. They resist expanding liability beyond the Tribunal’s configuration except per court directions, and seek to retain the original heads unless legally disallowed by precedent, while opposing unsubstantiated adjustments to the multiplier or dependency. They support the ongoing implementation of the award’s timing and interest provisions unless expressly reversed by the court.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited | (2011) KHC 4675 | Positive | Notional income for determining compensation in MACT; court relies on notional Rs.6,000 for year 2007 as per this decision. |
| National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others | (2017) 16 SCC 680 | Positive | Supports 40% future prospects in dependency calculations as adopted by the court. |
| Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon (through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another) | AIR 2021 SC 3913 | Positive | Judgment used to strike down or limit 'pain and suffering' head in death cases; court applies principle to obliterate that head in the present matter. |
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 Nos. 54 of 2015 & 3220 of 2014, High Court of Kerala 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**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944**
**MACA NO. 54 OF 2015**
**OP(MV) 267/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR DTD.30.8.2014**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
1 NITHYA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. SHAJI, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572. 2 ANAMIKA, AGED 8 YEARS D/O. SHAJI (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH 14/06/2005, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572. (REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND THE 1ST APPELLANT NITHYA) 3 SUNDARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572. 4 LEELAVATHI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O. SUNDARAN, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572. BY ADVS.SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
1 P.S.VEERAN, S/O SULAIMAN, PALLATHUKUDY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 550. 2 RAJEEV, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KARINGAPILLY HOUSE, NEAR L.P SCHOOL, VARAPATTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 669. 3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542. 4 SONY JOSE, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MATTOR P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574. 5 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683574. 6 IBRAHIM S/O.KATHER, 8/331, ATHIKKATTU HOUSE, PAIPPARA, MULAVOOR P.O - 686 673. BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN SRI.LAL GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.3220/2014, THE COURT ON 09.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
..2..
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 MACA NO. 3220 OF 2014**
**OP(MV) 268/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:**
|1|SAROJINI*** (DIED)**|
|---|---|
||W/O.SANKARAN, AGED 71 YEARS, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE,|
||SIVAJIPURAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683|
||572.|
|2|MADHAVAN|
||AGED 52 YEARS|
||S/O.SANKARAN, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM,|
||THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572.|
|3|VASUDEVAN|
||AGED 42 YEARS|
||S/O.SANKARAN, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM,|
||THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572.|
|4|NITHIN KUMAR|
||AGED 24 YEARS|
||S/O.NEELAKANDAN, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM,|
||THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572.|
|5|SANTHA|
||AGED 53 YEARS|
||W/O.PRABHAKARAN, KAROTHJUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYATUNADU,|
||U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.|
|6|SAVITHRI|
||AGED 50 YEARS|
||D/O.SANKARAN, VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SIVAJIPURAM,|
||THURAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572.|
|7|JAGADESWARI|
||AGED 40 YEARS|
||W/O.MANI, PUTHUMANAKUDY HOUSE, POTHANIKKADU,|
||PALARIMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 671.|
|ADDL.7|SHAKUNTALA|
||W/O NEELAKANTAN, AGED 54 YEARS,|
||VAZHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE,SHIVAJIPURAM,THURAVOOR P O,|
||ERNAKULAM 683 572.|
||***(ADDITIONAL 7th APPELLANT**IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN|
||I.A.No.1/2022)|
||BY ADVS.|
||SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)|
||SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE|
..3..
## M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- 1 P.S. VEERAN S/O.SULAIMAN, PALLTHUKUDY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 550.
- 2 RAJEEV S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KARINGAPILLY HOUSE, NEAR L.P.SCHOOL, VARAPATTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 669.
- 3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
- 4 SONY JOSE PUTHUSSERY HOUSE,'MATTOR P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
- 5 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
- 6 IBRAHIM S/O.KATHER, 8/331, ATHIKKATTU HOUSE, PAIPPARA, MULAVOOR P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.MANSOOR SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN SMT.SARAH SALVY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.11.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.54/2015, THE COURT ON 09.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
..4..
## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.**
---------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.Nos.54 of 2015 & 3220 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of December, 2022
## **JUDGMENT**
One Shaji and Jayanandan, both, succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident which took place on 29.11.2007 when the motor cycle in which they were travelling was rammed by a mini lorry driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Shaji was driving, while Jayanandan was a pillion. The dependent legal heirs of Shaji filed O.P.(M.V.)No.267/2008 and that of Jayanandan filed O.P. (M.V.)No.268/2008. Both were allowed by virtue of a common award dated 30.8.2014, which is impugned in these appeals, essentially on the question of inadequacy of quantum.
2. Heard Sri.Tony Thomas Inchiparambil, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri.P.M.M.Najeeb Khan and Sri.Lal George, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Perused the records.
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
**==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
## M.A.C.A.No.54/2015:
3. In M.A.C.A.No.54/2015, which pertains to the death of Shaji, the driver of the motor vehicle, learned counsel for the appellants first contended that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.3,500/- is very low. The deceased was a mason at the time of accident and even as per **Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited** [2011 KHC 4675], the notional income pertaining to the year of accident, 2007, is Rs.6,000/-. The contention in this regard is only to be accepted. Going by his age at the time of death, i.e., 35 years, the appellants are entitled to reckon future prospects @ 40% as held in **National**
## **Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others**
[(2017) 16 SCC 680], which contention is also liable to be accepted. As regards the conventional heads like 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each and under the head 'consortium', Rs.40,000/- each. Under all the three heads, the appellants are entitled to enhancement at the rate of 10% as specified in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). Deceased Shaji is survived by his wife,
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
**==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
minor daughter, father and mother, all of whom are his dependents, each being entitled to Rs.40,000/- as 'consortium'. Simultaneous with the same, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- granted under the head 'love and affection' and another Rs.1,00,000/- granted under the head 'consortium' are liable to be obliterated. Similarly, Rs.50,000/- granted under the head 'pain and suffering' is also not sustainable in view of the judgment in **Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another** [AIR 2021 SC 3913]. Accordingly, M.A.C.A.No.54/2015 is allowed and the compensation amount payable to the appellants therein is re-worked as indicated in the tabular statement herein below:
|**Sl.No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount**<br>**awarded by the**<br>**Tribunal**<br>**(Rs.)**|**Total amount**<br>**after**<br>**enhancement**<br>**in appeal**<br>**(Rs.)**|
|---|---|---|---|
|1|Funeral expense|25,000|16,500|
|2|Transport to hospital|1,000|1,000|
|3|Damage to clothing etc.|500|500|
|4|Loss of Dependency<br>and estate|5,04,000<br>2,500|12,09,600 *<br>16,500|
|5|Pain and Suffering|5,000|Nil|
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
..7..
|6|Loss of expectation|Nil|Nil|
|---|---|---|---|
|7|Loss of consortium|1,00,000|1,76,000|
|8|Love and affection|1,00,000|Nil|
|9|Extra nourishment|Nil|Nil|
|10|Treatment expenses|Nil|Nil|
||Total|7,38,000|14,20,100|
|Amount enhanced = Rs.6,82,100/- (Rupees Six lakhs eighty two<br>thousand one hundred only)||||
* 8,400 x 12 x 16x ¾
4. The direction/finding in the impugned award fixing the liability upon respondents 1 to 3 being the owner, driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle/mini lorry and exonerating respondents 4 to 6 is confirmed.
## M.A.C.A.No.3220/2014
5. Before addressing merits of this appeal, it is noticed that the 1[st] appellant, who is the mother of the deceased, passed away pending appeal and her legal heirs, except the additional 7[th] appellant, are already in the party array. The additional 7[th] appellant is sought to be impleaded by virtue of I.A.No.1/2022 which is hereby allowed.
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
**==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
6. Insofar as this appeal is concerned, the first contention is again based on notional income. The deceased in this case is also a mason and therefore, notional is liable to be reckoned as Rs.6,000/- as held in **Ramchandrappa** (supra). As in the other appeal, future prospects at the rate of 40% is liable to be reckoned in this case also, the age of the deceased at the time of accident being 38 years. In this appeal, the multiplier applied is '7', which obviously is a mistake having regard to the age of the deceased referred above. The correct multiplier to be applied is '15'. One-half of the income will have to be deducted towards personal expenses, the deceased being a bachelor at the time of accident. Here, only the mother is liable to be reckoned as a dependent legal heir. Admittedly, the deceased was not married and his married brothers and sisters, who were not depending on the income of the deceased, are not entitled to dependency compensation. Therefore, consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- is liable to be given to the mother, who is the first petitioner in the O.P. and the first appellant in the appeal. Loss under other conventional heads, namely, loss of estate and funeral
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
**==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
expenses are fixed at Rs.15,000/- each, as held in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). As against the above, compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted under the head 'love and affection' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', both, are liable to be obliterated, since the case at hand is one of death. In the result, this M.A.C.A. is also allowed, reworking the compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 7 (in their capacity as the legal representatives of the mother of the deceased), as shown in the tabular statement herein below:-
|**Sl.No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount**<br>**awarded by**<br>**the Tribunal**<br>**(Rs.)**|**Total amount**<br>**after**<br>**enhancement**<br>**in appeal**<br>**(Rs.)**|
|---|---|---|---|
|1|Funeral expense|25,000|16,500|
|2|Transport to hospital|1,000|1,000|
|3|Damage to clothing etc.|500|500|
|4|Loss of Dependency|1,47,000|7,56,000 *|
|5|Loss of estate|2,500|16,500|
|6|Pain and Suffering|5,000|Nil|
|7|Love and affection|50,000|Nil|
|8|Loss of consortium|–|44,000|
||Total|2,31,000|8,34,500|
|Amount enhanced = Rs.6,03,500/- (Rupees Six lakhs three thousand<br>five hundred only)||||
* 8400x12x15x ½
7. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the
M.A.C.A.Nos.54/2015 & 3220/2014
**==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off.
8. The respective claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months 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 given 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 the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.
These appeals are allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE**
skj