High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-12-10This MACA stands disposed of in the aforementio...

MACA.No.770/2013 & CO.No.59/2013

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.770 OF 2013; CO.No.59 OF 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2019-12-10
Court Decision / Holding: The MACT award is modified in light of Pranay Sethi guidelines. Income is re-determined at Rs.12,000/month (based on 2006-07 IT return), 1/3 deduction applied, and multiplier 11 used. Loss of dependency/earnings is set at Rs.10,56,000 and future expenses at Rs.1,05,600 (10%). Loss of consortium is raised to Rs.40,000. Other heads remain largely as awarded. The total compensation is kept within the Rs.25,00,000 cap. NICL must deposit the enhanced amount within two months from the date of the order, with interest at 12% if delayed. The MACA and CO are disposed of in these terms.
Final Disposition: This MACA stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondents

Renuka w/o late Gopinathan, Sreevaishnavam (Pathrakadavil) (H), Koottukad, Chendamangalam, N. Paravur-683512
Minor Vaishnavi, aged 16 years, D/o late Gopinathan, Sreevaishnavam (Pathrakadavil) (H), Koottukad, Chendamangalam, N. Paravur represented by mother
Minor Sreelakshmi, D/o late Gopinath, Sreevaishnavam (Pathrakadavil) (H), Koottukad, Chendamangalam, N. Paravur represented by mother

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.Reji George
• Sm t. Anupama Johny
• Sri.Gopakkumar G. (Aluva)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.A.R.George
• Sm t.Anupama Johny

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a High Court of Kerala judgment in MACA No.770/2013 and CO No.59/2013 arising from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under OP No.1086/2006 for a fatal road accident on 30 July 2006 involving a motorcycle. The claimants Renuka (wife) and two minor children sought Rs.25,00,000 as compensation. The MACT held the National Insurance Co. liable and awarded amounts across heads including funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of dependency, and loss of love and affection. The insurer challenged the quantum, arguing that the deceased’s income was not proven at Rs.7,000 per month and that it should be Rs.5,000; there was no bar to challenging quantum. The claimants contended IT returns for 2006-07 showed annual income of Rs.1,66,150 (≈ Rs.13,800/month) and urged inclusion of future prospects (10%) and higher awards for loss of consortium and love and affection. The Kerala High Court, citing Pranay Sethi guidelines, re-evaluated the income as Rs.12,000/month (from IT returns), applied a 1/3 deduction, and used multiplier 11 to compute loss of dependency. It held Rs.10,56,000 for dependency and Rs.1,05,600 for future expenses, raised the consortium head to Rs.40,000, and retained other heads largely as awarded, with the total capped at Rs.25,00,000. NICL was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with 12% interest if delayed. The appeal and cross-objection are disposed of in these terms.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi (Supra) guidelines for computation of compensation in motor accident cases including 1/3 deduction, future prospects, and multiplier for loss of dependency.
Use of multiplier method based on age of the deceased.
Loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and loss of love and affection as heads of compensation.
10% future prospects in appropriate cases as per Pranay Sethi (Supra).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Insurance Company argued that the MACT erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.7,000 without proof of agriculture income and that the amount should have been Rs.5,000. It also contended there is no bar to challenging quantum on appeal, and that the calculation failed to meet standards for evidence and calculation of compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants contended that IT returns for 2006-07 show an annual income of Rs.1,66,150 (≈ Rs.13,800 per month) and that future prospects of 10% should be included, along with a higher award for loss of consortium and love and affection. They urged revision of the MACT award to reflect higher, more accurate income and appropriate heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Court applies Pranay Sethi guidelines to enhance compensation, adjusting for future prospects, proper income, and consolidation of heads of damages.

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.No.770/2013 & CO.No.59/2013 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 AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.770 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1086/2006 DATED 08-03-2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH PARAVUR** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE O.P :-** **NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD PALARIVATTOM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDINGS, PADMA JN., M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE O.P:** |**1**|**RENUKA**| |---|---| ||**W/O. LATE GOPINATHAN,**| ||**SREEVAISHNAVAM (PATHRAKADAVIL)(H),**| ||**KOOTTUKAD, CHENDAMANGALAM,**| ||**N.PARAVUR-683512.**| |**2**|**MINOR VAISHNAVI**| ||**D/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, -D0-**| |**3**|**MINOR SREELAKSHMI**| ||**-DO- -DO-**| ||**(MINOR RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY THEIR**| ||**MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN-RENUKA THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT).**| **R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY R1 BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2019, ALONG WITH CO.59/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 CO.No.59 OF 2013 IN MACA. 770/2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 770/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN MACA NO.770/2013:** **1 RENUKA W/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, SREEVAISHNAVAM (PATHRAKADAVIL)(H), KOOTTUKAD, CHENDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR-683512. 2 VAISHNAVI, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, SREEVAISHNAVAM (PATHRAKADAVIL)(H), KOOTTUKAD, CHENDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIANRENUKA 3 SREELAKSHMI, AGED 13 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, SREEVAISHNAVAM (PATHRAKADAVIL)(H), KOOTTUKAD, CHENDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIANRENUKA** **BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)** **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN MACA NO.770/2013 :-** **NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MYDHILY MANDIRAM, JANATHA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.770/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ MACA.770/2013, CO.59/2013 ]** ## **Dated this the 10th day of December 2019** This order shall dispose of two matters appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and Cross Objection bearing No.59 of 2013 on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. As per the facts pointed out in the petition the deceased Gopinathan, aged 45 years working as a business consultant unfortunately died in a road accident occurred on 30.07.2006 at 2.20 p.m while riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-07/AM-2677 after having hit to another motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL- 07/P-6620 driven by the second respondent. The wife of the deceased i.e claimant No.1 Renuka and two minor children claimant Nos.2 and 3 sought compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** ## **4** 3. The first and second respondents in the claim petition represented by the counsel opposed the claim, raising question of maintainability, ownership of the vehicle having been already transferred to one Biju way back in the year 2004. The second respondent denied his involvement in the accident being negligent and rash, where third respondent attributed the liability of rash and negligence upon the insured disputed the compensation to be highly exorbitant, much less the validity of the driving licence of one Mr.Sujith. 4. The claimants brought on record Exts.A1 to A7 series and respondents B1 to B6. Ext.A2 is the scence mahazar showing the width of the road and by noticing the aforementioned facts and evidence, the MACT fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company or the second respondent. Ext.A4 is the post mortem report, Ext.A1 the FIR and Ext.A7, the income tax returns of 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006—07. It was alleged that the deceased Gopinath was **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **5** having income from the profession at Rs.5,000/- and also having Rs.2,000/- from the agricultural income. The MACT on preponderance of the evidence assessed the compensation under different head in the following manner. |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount claimed (in Rupees)|Amount awarded (in Rupees)|Basis - Vitals detail in nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Transportation expense|1000|1000|| |2|Damage to cloth and articles|500|500|| |3|Bystander Expenses|500|Nil|| |4|Medical Expenditure|1000|Nil|| |5|Funeral Expenses|10000|10000|| |6|Pain and sufferings endured by the deceased|20000|15000|| |7|Loss of dependency/ loss of earnings|2500000|616000|| |8|Compensation for loss of company security, service and dependency|100000|Nil|| |9|Loss of love and affection and parental care to the|100000|25000|| **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** |**6**|**6**|**6**|**6**|**6**| |---|---|---|---|---| ||minor petitioners 2 to 3|||| |10|Compensation for mental agony, pain etc|100000|Nil|| |11|Loss of consortium to 1st petitioner/ widow|100000|20000|| |12|Loss of estate/ loss of expectancy of life|Nil|15000|| ||Total|Rs.29,33,000/- limited to Rs.25,00,000/-|Rs.7,02,500|| |||||| 5. Shri.A.R.George, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that the claimants failed to prove on record any income with regard to the agriculture and therefore the award of MACT assessing his income as Rs.7000/- is highly erroneous and perverse and it should have been only Rs.5,000/-. There is no bar for the Insurance Company to challenge the award on the basis of quantum. 6. Per contra, Smt.Anupama Johny, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **7** to 3 and objector submits that the compensation awarded by the MACT is liable to be enhanced, as it failed to notice the income tax return for the year 2007 as the monthly income of the deceased was to the tune of Rs.13,000/-, though in the previous assessment years 2003-2004 2004-2005, the taxable income was nil. Even the future prospects 10% have also not been taken care of, much less, the consortium is also on a lower side. A meager amount of Rs.25000/- against the loss of love and affection has been awarded. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that this is a fit case where the award of MACT is liable to be modified. Though in the first blush, argument of Mr.George _viz a viz_ the assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs.7000 in the absence of any proof of agriculture income to the tune of Rs.2000/- look attractive as claimants are failed to place on record any material much less anything can be deduced from the income tax **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **8** returns as it did not contain any chart of computation but the MACT noticed the income tax returns for assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 where the taxable income was shown to be nil but failed to notice return for the assessment year 2006-2007 where the annual income of the deceased from the profession was Rs.1,66,150/- which as per the calculation for a month rounded up would come Rs.13,833/- 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **National** ## **Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT** **662 (SC)]** noticing all the judgments assessed the amount of compensation towards the funeral, loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. From the perusal of the chart extracted above, the compensation against the column of consortium assessed as Rs.20,000/- is liable to be enhanced to other Rs.20,000/- making the amount to be Rs.40,000/-. For pain and sufferings the amount claimed was Rs.20,000/-. Since claimants failed to place on record any medical bills, compensation on **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **9** account of transportation, damage to cloth, bystander expenses, medical expenditure and funeral expenses awarded by the MACT are upheld. Coming now to the loss of dependency/loss of earnings, learned MACT has taken the income of Rs.7000/- by applying the deduction of 1/3rd assessed the compensation as Rs.6,16,000/- by applying the multiplier of '11'. The application of multiplier '11' considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident took place do not require any change. But keeping in view the income tax returns, as noticed above, I am taking the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month and deduction of Rs.4,000/- (12,000x 1/3 = 4,000) by one third, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.8000/-. There should be a marginal increase of compensation i.e, Rs.10,56,000/- (8000 x 12 x 11) against the compensation of Rs.6,16,000/-. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency and loss of earnings would be Rs.10,56,000/-. **MACA.No.770 OF 2013 & CO.No.59 OF 2013** **10** 9. The learned MACT has not taken into consideration awarding of future expenses which according to the age of the deceased and as well as the dictum of the _**Pranay Sethi (Supra)**_ should have been to the extent of 10% which comes to Rs.1,05,600/- (800x11x12). Resultantly, the order of the MACT is modified and compensation is awarded in the aforementioned terms. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within two months from the date of application, failing which, it entails interest @ 12%. This M.A.C.A stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** ## **SMA**