High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-14Appeals partly allowed; modified awards with de...

MACA Nos.164 & 236 of 2014

Case / Petition Number:MACA Nos.164 & 236 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2020-09-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed to the limited extent. The High Court recalculated compensation: for OP(MV)368/2011 the award stands at Rs. 8,68,500 and for OP(MV)443/2011 at Rs. 8,23,500. The multiplier is reduced to 14 and future prospects to 25%, with enhanced and adjusted heads of compensation as per Sarla Verma and Magma guidelines. The payment must be made within three months from the date of the order, with interest at 9% from the date of application before the Tribunal, and NEFT/RTGS transfer after verification of the claimant’s bank details. The Tribunal is to enforce the payment with proper documentation including Aadhaar/ID and a cancelled cheque. The appeals are thus disposed of to the limited extent stated.
Final Disposition: Appeals partly allowed; modified awards with detailed directions for payment within three months and 9% interest via NEFT/RTGS; verification and bank details to be furnished.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Land Mortgage Building, Rest House Compound, Chinnakkada, Kollam, represented by its Deputy Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Attingal P.O., Represented by its Deputy Manager

Respondents

Thanka d/o. Thankappan, Puthuvalvila, Muttappalam, Perunguzhi, Azhur Village
Unnikuttan, s/o Reghunathan, Puthuvalvila, Muttappalam, Perunguzhi, Azhur Village
Pinky, d/o Regunathan, Puthuvalvila, Muttappalam, Perunguzhi, Azhur Village
Ambujakshy, d/o Velu, Thekkavilaveedu, Thonnakkal, Thonnakkal Village
K.K. Sadan, s/o Kunju Panicker, Jeena Bhavan, Chandantope P.O., Kollam
Abdul Karim, s/o Muhammed, Bijili, Thazhathil Veedu, Mungolil, Appolo Nagar, Karamula, Kollam
Sakunthala, Sakunthala, Mavuvilaveedu, 16th Stone, Thonnakkal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
Vineeth (minor), Mavuvilaveedu, 16th Stone, Thonnakkal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
Aswathy (minor), Mavuvilaveedu, 16th Stone, Thonnakkal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
Savithri, Mavuvilaveedu, 16th Stone, Thonnakkal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Lal K. Joseph
• Sri. A. A. Ziyad Rahman
• Sri. K. K. M. Sheriff

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M. R. Sarin
• Sri. C. R. Sivakumar
• Sri. Pratheesh P

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard two Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA Nos.164 and 236 of 2014) challenging awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, in OP(MV) Nos. 443/2011 and 368/2011. The insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) appealed the computation of compensation arguing that the Tribunal erred in applying a high amount for future prospects and in the multiplier, while the claimants sought proper valuation under heads such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium. The Tribunal had fixed the decedent’s income at Rs. 4,000 per month and allowed a 50% uplift for future prospects with 1/4 deduction for personal expenses. The High Court, applying established jurisprudence, held that where the deceased did not have regular employment, future prospects should be capped at 25% (per National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi) and the multiplier should be adjusted to reflect the deceased’s age, here 14. It also noted that enhancement under Sarla Verma guidelines might be warranted, but rejected certain heads such as loss of love/affection. The court recalculated totals: OP(MV)368/2011 to Rs. 8,68,500 and OP(MV)443/2011 to Rs. 8,23,500, directing payment within three months at 9% interest via NEFT/RTGS, with identity verification and bank details to be provided. The outcome is a limited, but substantive, modification of the Tribunal’s award.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects cap at 25% for non-regular employment (Pranay Sethi)
Sarla Verma guidelines on multiplier and compensation heads
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram on loss of consortium

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contended that the Tribunal erred in the computation of compensation by applying a high future-prospect uplift and an inappropriately large multiplier. It argued that the deceased’s earnings could not be treated as regular employment, warranting a 25% cap on future prospects and a reduced multiplier aligned to age. It also urged corrections to various heads of damages and questioned inclusion of certain non-dependency elements. It pressed for a reduction of the awards to reflect actual income, and emphasized prompt payment with accrual of interest post-date of application.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants pleaded that the Tribunal’s award fairly captured the loss to family and depended on the acknowledged heads of loss, including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium. They urged maintaining or enhancing awards in line with Sarla Verma guidelines and Magma for loss of consortium, and contended for appropriate consideration of future prospects to reflect the decedent’s potential earnings and family’s loss, while seeking timely payment with interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	2017 (5) KHC 350	Positive	Used to justify capping future prospects at 25% for non-regular employment, influencing the computation of compensation.
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others	(2010) 2 KLT 802	Positive	Guides the application of the multiplier and heads of compensation; cited for enhancement under applicable guidelines.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others	2018 (11) SCALE 247	Positive	Cited to support the computation of loss of consortium and related heads in the revised 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 Nos.164 & 236 of 2014 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.164 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 443/2011 DATED 29.06.2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD LAND MORTGAGE BUILDING, REST HOUSE COMPOUND,CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTYMANAGER.** **BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THANKA D/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHUVALVILA, MUTTAPPALAM, PERUNGUZHI, AZHOOR VILLAGE. 2 UNNIKUTTAN AGED 19 YEARS S/O.REGHUNATHAN, PUTHUVALVILA, MUTTAPPALAM,PERUNGUZHI, AZHOOR VILLAGE. 3 PINKY AGED 17 YEARS S/O.REGUNATHAN, PUTHUVALVILA, MUTTAPPALAM,PERUNGUZHI, AZHOOR VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY HERMOTHER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THANKA.** |**4**|**AMBUJAKSHY**| |---|---| ||**D/O.VELU, THEKKEVILAVEEDU, THONNAKKAL, THONNAKKAL**| ||**VILLAGE.**| |**5**|**K.K.SADAN**| ||**S/O.KUNJU PANICKER, JEENA BHAVAN, CHANDANATHOPE P.O.,**| ||**KOLLAM.**| |**6**|**ABDUL KARIM**| ||**S/O.MUHAMMED, BIJILI, THAZHATHIL VEEDU,MUNGOLIL,**| ||**APPOLO NAGAR, KARAMULA, KOLLAM.**| **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 2** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.09.2020, ALONG WITH MACA.236/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.236 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 368/2011 DATED 29-06-2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ATTINGAL PO, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER** **BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SAKUNTHALA SAKUNTHALA,MAVUVILAVEEDU,16TH STONE,THONNAKKAL PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 317** - **2 VINEETH(MINOR) MAVUVILAVEEDU,16TH STONE,THONNAKKAL P.O,REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND THE 1ST** **RESPONDENT,SAKUNTHALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 317** - **3 ASWATHY(MINOR) MAVUVILAVEEDUY16TH STONETHONNAKKAL PO REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND THE 1ST RESPOND** - **4 SAVITHRI, MAVUVILAVEEDU, 16TH STONE, THONNAKKAL PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 317** - **5 K.K SADAN, S/O.KUNJU PANICKER,JEENA BHAVAN CHANDANTHOPE PO KOLLAM 691014** - **6 ABDUL KARIM, S/O.MUHAMMED BIJILI, THAZHATHIL VEEDU MUNGOLIL, APPOLO NAGAR, KARAMULA, KOLLAM 691001** **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 4** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.09.2020, ALONG WITH MACA.164/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 5** ## **JUDGMENT** **The claimants before the Tribunal in the two O.P (MV)'s were the legal heirs of two pedestrians who were run over by a vehicle. The vehicle driver was found to be negligent. The vehicle was covered by an insurance policy. The Tribunal awarded compensation, against which appeals are filed by the Insurance Company. The appeal is only against the computation of the compensation.** **2. In O.P(MV)No.368/2011, the Tribunal** **adopted an income of Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal reduced 1/4[th] of the income which is not assailed. The contention is with respect to the computation of 50% for future prospects. Since the deceased was not employed in regular employment, there should have been only 25% taken, considering the age of the deceased which was above 40, as has been declared in** _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (5) KHC 350].**_ **In considering such aspect, what has also to be considered is if there is any** **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 6** **enhancement to be granted based on** _**Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others [(2010) 2 KLT 802].**_ **Funeral expenses has to be increased to Rs.15,000/-. Loss of amenities/estate has to be granted at Rs.15,000/-each. For loss of consortium Rs.30,000/has been granted and for loss of love , affection and guidance Rs.25,000/- has been granted. There is no compensation head under loss of love, affection and guidance. However, under the head loss of consortium,the wife,the mother and two minor children are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as loss of spousal, filial and parental consortium as per** _**2018 (11) SCALE 247 = 2018(4) RCR (Civil)333 [Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd.**_ _**v. Nanu Ram and others]**_ **. The compensation for loss of dependency would be reduced since the future prospects should only be given at 25%.** **3. Accordingly, the following modification is made in MACA No. 236 of 2014, to the award passed by the Tribunal in OP(MV) No. 368 of 2011 :** **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 7** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the** **Tribunal** `|**Total amount** **after** **modification in** **appeal** `| |---|---|---|---| |**1**|**Transportation to** **hospital**|**3000**|**3000**| |**2**|**Expenses of funeral and** **to bring in relatives** **to attend funeral and** **obsequies**|**8000**|**15000**| |**3**|**Damage to clothing and** **personal articles**|**500**|**500**| |**4**|**Compensation for loss** **of love, affection and** **guidance**|**25000**|**Deleted**| |**5**|**Compensation for loss** **of dependency, future** **income** **and** **other** **benefits and also loss** **of future prospects**|**810000**|**675000** **[4000*3/4*125%*** **12*15]**| |**6**|**Compensation for loss** **of consortium**|**30000**|**160000** **[40000*4]**| |**7**|**Compensation for loss** **of estate**|**10000**|**15000**| ||**Total**|**8,86,500**|**8,68,500**| |**4. As far as O.P(MV)No.443/2011 is** **concerned, similar contentions are raised. The** **contention of the Insurance Company is that, the** **multiplier also should be reduced since the** **Tribunal adopted 15 while the postmortem**|||| ## **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 8** **certificate produced as A8 shows the age of the deceased as 42. Learned counsel for the claimants however asserts that the age was only 39 at the time of accident. Learned Counsel also seeks for production of the SSLC book. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. The appeal was pending here for the last six years. The claimants did not chose to produce any document in the ensuing years when the appeal was pending here. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time for the production of the SSLC certificate. The multiplier in the above O.P(MV) has to be restricted to 14 and for future prospects, it has to be 25%. Enhancement under the various heads as granted in the other appeal has also to be made.** **5. Accordingly, the following modification is made in MACA No. 164 of 2014 to the award passed by the Tribunal in OP(MV) No. 443 of 2011** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the** **Tribunal** `|**Total amount** **after** **enhancement in** **appeal** `| |---|---|---|---| ## **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 9** |**1**|**Transportation to** **hospital**|**3000**|**3000**| |---|---|---|---| |**2**|**Expenses of funeral and** **to bring in relatives** **to attend funeral and** **obsequies**|**8000**|**15000**| |**:3**|**Damage to clothing and** **personal articles**|**500**|**500**| |**4**|**Compensation for loss** **of love, affection and** **guidance**|**25000**|**Deleted**| |**5**|**Compensation for loss** **of dependency, future** **income** **and** **other** **benefits and also loss** **of future prospects**|**810000**|**630000** **[4000*3/4*125%*** **12*14]**| |**6**|**Compensation for loss** **of consortium**|**30000**|**160000** **[40000*4]**| |**7**|**Compensation for loss** **of estate**|**10000**|**15000**| ||**Total**|**8,86,500**|**8,23,500**| **6. In so far as O.P(MV)No.368 of 2011, the** **compensation as per the fresh computation made by this Court would be Rs.8,68,500/- and for O.P(MV)No.443 of 2011, the compensation would be Rs.8,23,500/-. The appeals are allowed to the limited extend.** **The payment as per the modification made herein shall be made within three months with interest as directed by the Tribunal @ 9% from the** **MACA.Nos.164 & 236 OF 2014 10** **date of application before the Tribunal, after deducting the amounts already paid or deposited. The appellant shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the Bank Account in a Nationalized Bank in his name, with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, with copy to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said account, failing which the Tribunal shall proceed with the recovery in accordance with law.** ## **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **uu** **14.09.2020**