M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2022-06-15
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the total compensation is modified and reduced to Rs 17,33,000, with deposit directions and no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award modified; no costs; deposit directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd

Respondents

ANTONY, S/O. XAVIER
TREESA SOUMYA @ SOUMYA
PHILOMINA SANITHA
ARUN G. MANUEL
S. AMUTHA
NELSON, S/O. JEROME
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Lal George

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.V. Rajan
• Sri M. Prem Chand
• Smt. P.M. Princy Lal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1753 of 2014, claiming Rs 25,65,300 as compensation for Soumesh’s death in a road traffic collision on 26 January 2014. The deceased, aged 25, was a mason and a pillion rider on motorcycle KL-43-C-8053, driven by Antony. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the first respondent, and the offending vehicle was insured by the National Insurance Company Limited, the appellant in this MACA. The Tribunal held the insurer liable for the awarded amount, but the first respondent rider was treated as not having a valid license. The NIC challenged the quantum on several grounds: (i) the notional monthly income of Rs 10,000; (ii) future prospects at 50% rather than 40% in light of Pranay Sethi; and (iii) deduction for personal expenses at 1/3 rather than 50%, with the proper multiplier for a not-yet-26-year-old at 18 under Sarla Verma. The High Court agreed that Rs 10,000 notional income is reasonable per Ramachandrappa, but held that future prospects should be 40% and the personal expenses deduction should be 50%, recalculating loss of dependency accordingly. The court then found the proper loss of dependency, added funeral and estate elements, and adjusted other heads, reducing the total to Rs 17,33,000. The appeal is allowed; no costs, with deposit directions.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (AIR 2011 SC 2951) – notional income for skilled labourer
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 – 40% enhancement for future prospects
Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298 SC) – multiplier of 18

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in quantum. Notional monthly income of Rs 10,000 is reasonable (Ramachandrappa); future prospects should be enhanced by 40% per Pranay Sethi (not 50%); deduction towards personal expenses should be 50% (not 1/3); multiplier of 18 per Sarla Verma; adjustments to funeral expenses, loss of estate, and love and affection heads in line with precedents; final amended compensation proposed Rs 17,33,000; stay deposit and recovery directions; deposit within two months; liberty to recover from 4th respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal's quantum was just and should be upheld; reliance on established precedents like Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma; oppose lowering the compensation; defend the existing heads of compensation and the calculation method.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Cited to justify notional income for a skilled labourer.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to support 40% enhancement for future prospects, limiting the Tribunal's 50%.
Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2009 ACJ 1298 SC	Positive	Used to determine the appropriate multiplier (18) based on age.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944 MACA NO. 3404 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.06.2016 IN OPMV.NO.1753/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** **APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1753/14:** **M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-13.** **BY ADV SRI.LAL GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3/RESPONDENTS 1, 3, 4 AND 5 IN** **O.P.(M.V.) 1753/14:** |**1**|**ANTONY,**| |---|---| ||**S/O. XAVIER, AGED 54 YEARS,**| ||**F/O. LATE SOUMESH, KURISHINGAL HOUSE,**| ||**KANNAMALY P.O.,KOCHI-8.**| |**2**|**TREESA SOUMYA @ SOUMYA**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS, KURISHINGAL HOUSE,**| ||**KANNAMALY P.O., KOCHI-8.**| |**3**|**PHILOMINA SANITHA**| ||**AGED 23 YEARS, KURISINGAL HOUSE,**| ||**KANNAMALY P.O., KOCHI-8.**| |**4**|**ARUN G. MANUEL**| ||**S/O.GEORGE JOSEPH, KUDUNGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**H.NO. 12/144, KANNAMALY P.O., KOCHI-8.**| |**5**|**S. AMUTHA, S/O. SEBASTIN, NO.2-B,**| ||**TATABAD 4TH STREET, COIMBATORE 641 012,**| ||**TAMIL NADU.**| 2 M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 **6 NELSON, S/O. JEROME, D.NO. 2B TATABAD 4TH STREET, COIMBATORE, PIN- 641 012, TAMIL NADU. 7 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOCHI-11.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.RAJAN SRI.M.PREMCHAND SMT.P.M.PRINCY LAL** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON 15.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 3 ## **SOPHY THOMAS, J.** **--------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------** Dated this the 15[th] day of June, 2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal has been preferred by the 2[nd] respondentNational Insurance Company Limited in O.P.(M.V) No.1753 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. 2. The original petition was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Soumesh who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 26.01.2014 at 10.15 p.m. The deceased Soumesh was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-43-C-8053, ridden by the 1[st] respondent. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1[st] respondent. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the appellant herein. 4 ## M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 3. The Tribunal on analysing the facts and evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.25,65,300/(Twenty five lakhs sixty five thousand three hundred only) under various heads, making the appellant liable to compensate the claimants, but with a right to realise the same from the 1[st] respondent, as he had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. 4. The appellant/2[nd] respondent is challenging the award mainly on the ground that the compensation assessed for loss of dependency is incorrect. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% ought to have been deducted towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3[rd] deduction made by the Tribunal. Moreover, the notional income fixed @ Rs.10,000/- is on the higher side. The loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc., should be in tune with the precedents set up by the Apex Court. So challenging the quantum of compensation under various heads, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 5. Now, the point to be considered is:- whether M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 5 there is any illegality or impropriety committed by the Tribunal in fixing the quantum of compensation, and if so, whether the award requires any modification? 6. The deceased was a 25 year old Mason as found by the Tribunal, and that finding is not under challenge. Ext.A5 inquest report shows the occupation of the deceased as Mason. The date of birth of the deceased as born out from Ext.A7 election identity card is 30.07.1988. So, on the date of accident i.e., on 26.01.2014, he had not completed 26 years of age. The notional income fixed @ Rs.10,000/- per month is quite reasonable going by the dictum laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance** **Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951],** as the deceased was a skilled labourer. Going by the decision in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** 40% enhancement could have been given towards future prospects. But the Tribunal awarded 50% increase towards future prospects and M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 6 deducted only 1/3[rd] of his income towards his personal expenses. That calculation is not correct going by judicial precedents. Moreover, a mistake is seen crept in the calculation made by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency. 10,000-1/3[rd] +50%x12x17 is seen calculated as Rs.23,86,800/-. But actually the correct calculation is Rs.20,40,102/-. 7. Since the deceased was not having any permanent employment, going by **Pranay Sethi** 's case (supra) he was eligible for 40% enhancement only, towards future prospects. So his notional monthly income, including future prospects @ 40% would have been Rs.14,000/-. Since he was a bachelor, 50% ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses and so his income for calculating loss of dependency would have been Rs.7,000/only. Since he had not completed 26 years as on the date of accident, the multiplier applicable is 18 going by the decision in **Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298 SC)** . So his loss 7 M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 of dependency could be assessed as follows:-10000+40%50%x12x18=15,12,000/-. 8. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants were eligible to get only Rs.15,000/- each. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, so Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted therefrom. Towards loss of estate, claimants were given only Rs.7,500/- by the Tribunal. So, they are eligible to get Rs.7,500/- more. Towards loss of love and affection, Rs.75,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The father and sisters of the deceased were eligible for loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, which will come to Rs.1,20,000/- in total. So they will get Rs.45,000/- more under that head. The other heads of compensation awarded seems to be quite reasonable and so it does not require any interference. So, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.25,65,300/- is to be modified and reduced to Rs.17,33,000/-(10,000+ 5,000+ 15,000+ 50,000 +6,000+ 15,000+ 1,20,000+ 15,12,000) 8 M.A.C.A.No.3404 of 2016 9. The appellant has deposited Rs.12,00,000/before the tribunal for the purpose of getting stay. They have to deposit the balance amount in the bank account of respondents 1 to 3 (claimants) with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities if any towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appellant is at liberty to proceed against the 4[th] respondent to recover the amount. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** AS