M.A.C.A Nos. 751 of 2014 and 903 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date: 2022-06-14
Court Decision / Holding: MACA 903/2014: Dismissed. MACA 751/2014: Allowed. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal, with interest, within two months. The recovery right against the 2nd respondent is set aside, imposing liability on the insurer to pay the full amount.
Final Disposition: MACA Nos. 751/2014 allowed; MACA Nos. 903/2014 dismissed; insurer to deposit entire amount with interest within two months; recovery rights adjusted accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SATHEESAN
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Respondents

THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI
THUSHARA
SITHARA
ABHIJITH
RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI
DEVAKI AMMA
SYAMKUMAR
MADHSOODHANAN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SATHEESAN — Adv. Sri B. Krishna Mani
• THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Advs. Sri George Cherian; Sri Latha Susan Cherian; Sri KS Santhi

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. P. Lissy Jose; Sri S. Santhosh Kumar; SMT. P. Lissy Jose; Sri Syam J. Sam

Case Synopsis & Summary

This common judgment of the Kerala High Court (A. Badharudeen, J.) arises from two Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 751/2014 and 903/2014) challenging a 2010 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No. 968/2010, Kollam. The 1st appellant Satheesan (MACA 751/2014) contends that the second respondent had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, supported by Ext. B1 which shows a two-wheeler/three-wheeler licence validity from 02-08-2008; consequently, the recovery right against him should be set aside and the insurer should bear the liability for the entire awarded amount. In MACA 903/2014, the appellant insurer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the award on two grounds: that 10% tax ought not to have been excluded in computing loss of dependency, and a change of vehicle ownership might affect liability. The court refers to the ratio in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, and finds that the insurer could not succeed in obtaining a reduction of the already passed award, while also holding that vehicle ownership transfer has little consequence for liability. Ultimately, the court dismisses MACA 903/2014 and allows MACA 751/2014, directing the insurer to deposit the entire amount with interest within two months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi ratio (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi) — computation of compensation in motor vehicle claims, including tax adjustments and future prospects.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

In MACA 751/2014, Satheesan contends that the 2nd respondent possessed a valid driving licence at the time of the accident (as per Ext. B1) and that the recovery right should be set aside, making the insurer liable to pay the entire amount. In MACA 903/2014, the insurer argues that 10% tax should have been deducted while computing loss of dependency and that transfer of ownership affects insurer liability. The court’s reasoning relies on Pranay Sethi’s ratio to uphold the existing award amount and address the ownership issue as of lesser consequence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the method of calculating compensation should follow established tax treatment (i.e., deduction of tax impact on income) and that policy conditions or ownership transfer might influence insurer liability. They also support the stance that the award should be maintained but contend regarding the proper application of tax and policy terms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	The court relies on the ratio from Pranay Sethi to hold that the insurer could not succeed in obtaining a reduction of the already passed award, thus applying the principle in determining the liability.

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** **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **MACA NO. 751 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 968/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT/1st RESPONDENT:** SATHEESAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, ARUNALAYAM, PLACHERI, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:** 1 THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 58, (DIED) S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690521. *2 THUSHARA, AGED 27, D/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, DO. DO. *3 SITHARA, AGED 25, D/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, DO. DO. *4 ABHIJITHA, AGED 20, S/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, DO. DO. *R1 DIED AND IT IS RECORDED THAT R2 TO R4 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R1 AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2020 IN MEMO (DTD 16.10.20) IN MACA751/14. 5 RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 74, F/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, DO. DO. 6 DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 72, M/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, DO. DO. 7 SYAMKUMAR, S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 49, MANAKKARA MURI,SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690521. ## **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 8 THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691533. 9 MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.NANU, AGED 54, MAHESH BHAVAN, KALAYANADU, PLACHERRY.P.O, PUNALUR-695331. BY ADVS. SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE SRI.SYAM J.SAM THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.903/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944 MACA NO. 903 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 968/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI – 18. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & ADDITIONAL** ## **RESPONDENT NO.4** 1 THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 695 021. 2 THUSHARA, D/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521. 3 SITHARA, D/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521. 4 ABHIJITH, S/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521. ## **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** 4 5 RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, F/O.LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521. 6 DEVAKI AMMA, M/O LATE VASANTHAKUMARI, THULASI BHAVANAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521. 7 SATHEESAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, ARUNALAYAM, PLACHERI, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 333. *8 SYAMKUMAR, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 690 521. [DELETED] *THE 8TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 IN IA. 2066/2017 IN M.A.C.A. NO.903/2014. 9 MADHSOODHANAN, S/O.NANU, MAHESH BHAVAN, KALAYANADU, PLACHERRY P.O., PUNALUR, PIN - 691 333. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.751/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** 5 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** Both appeals arise out of award dated 06.11.2013 in O.P.(M.V) No.968/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. 2. In M.A.C.A.No.903/2014, the 3[rd] respondent challenged the award on the ground that while fixing the income to assess the 'loss of dependency', 10% tax was not reduced. In this matter, the petitioners in the original petition, who are legal heirs of one Vasanthakumari claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- on the allegation that the above said Vasanthakumari died on 15.12.2009. In the said case, the Tribunal granted Rs.33,42,948/- as compensation along with 9% interest. 3. Though the learned counsel for the appellant highlighted irregularity in the matter of non-reduction of tax from the monthly income considered for assessing loss of ## **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** 6 dependency, it has been brought out during hearing that the following ratio in _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi**_ **: (2017)** **16 SCC 680,** the Insurance Company could not succeed in getting reduction in the award already passed. This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also. 4. It is argued further that there is violation of policy conditions since the vehicle was transferred in the name of the 4[th] respondent as per Ext.B1 and the policy taken subsequently shall not make the insurer liable. 5. In response to this argument, it has to be held that since the policy runs with the vehicle, this technical argument has no legal base to stand. 6. Since it is not possible to reduce the award amount in any manner, even reducing 10% tax, otherwise more amount is liable to be ## **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** 7 granted as found in the decision in _**Pranay**_ _**Sethi's case**_ (supra), and the change of ownership is of least consequence, this appeal deserves no merits and accordingly M.A.C.A. No.903/2014 is dismissed. 7. Coming to M.A.C.A.No.751/2014, recovery right granted in favour of the appellant/1[st] respondent holding that the 2[nd] respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident, is under challenge. 8. As per Ext.B1, marked in this appeal produced as Annexure-I, it could be gathered that the driver of the autorickshaw was given licence to drive three wheeler with effect from 02.08.2008 and, therefore, it could not held that he did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident, i.e., on 15.12.2009. Thus, it is established that the 1[st] respondent is having a valid driving licence, recovery right given in favour of the 3[rd] respondent ## **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** against the 1[st] respondent shall not sustain in the eye of law. 9. Therefore, the recovery right is interfered and accordingly, the same is set aside, fastening the liability to pay the entire amount passed by the Tribunal to original petitioners by the insurer. Therefore, the insurer, (original 3[rd] respondent) before the Tribunal, is decided to deposit the entire amount within two months from today, along with the interest granted by the Tribunal. In the result, M.A.C.A.No.903/2014 stands dismissed and M.A.C.A.No.751/2014 is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww 9 ## **M.A.C.A Nos.751 and 903 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX OF MACA 751/2014** ## APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-I ORIGINAL OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS ISSUED BY THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PUNALUR WITH REGARD TO THE VEHICLE KL-25/2138 DATED 14.02.2014. ANNEXURE-II ORIGINAL OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LIMITED, PUNALUR. ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE PARTICULARS OF SYAMKUMAR S., THE 7TH RESPONDENT HEREIN. ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DETAILS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, KERALA.