Mariya and others v. Assan Koya and Jithesh and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,000 in addition to the Tribunal’s award, with the entire amount of compensation carrying interest at the rate and for the period directed by the Tribunal. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs.37,000 over the tribunal’s award, with interest as directed; other tribunal directions upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mariya
Abdul Latheef
Abdul Jaleel
Mammoonath

Respondents

Assaan Koya
Jithesh
Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan
• Smt.Lekshmi Swaminathan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.George Cherian (for R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from a tribunal award of Rs.1,12,500 for the death of a breadwinner in a road accident on 9 March 2007. The appellants, the widow and three adult children, challenge the quantum, contending that the tribunal erred in calculating loss of dependency using a multiplier of 5 for a decedent aged 60–65, whereas the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation prescribes a higher multiplier; they also challenge the monthly income assumed at Rs.2,000 and the relatively low award for loss of consortium. The High Court reasons that the tribunal's calculation did not reflect the updated multiplier; while it agrees that the monthly income figure is a reasonable starting point, it finds that the multiplier should be increased to 7. The court also finds the loss of consortium amount of Rs.2,500 to be inadequate and increases it to Rs.7,500. After examining the record, the court directs an additional compensation of Rs.37,000 over and above the tribunal’s award: Rs.32,000 for enhanced loss of dependency (computed as 2000x12x2/3x7, adjusted from the tribunal’s calculation) and Rs.5,000 for loss of consortium. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed, with the total compensation to carry interest as per tribunal directions and the tribunal’s other orders upheld.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act – Second Schedule (II Schedule)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplier principle (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation)
Presumption of prudence arising from Clause 6 of the Second Schedule

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal understates loss of dependency by applying a multiplier of 5 for a decedent aged 60–65. They argued that Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation requires adoption of a higher multiplier (7). They objected to the monthly income of Rs.2,000 as too low and pressed for a higher figure supported by evidence. They also submitted that the amount for loss of consortium was unreasonably low and requested an uplift (to Rs.7,500). They sought an overall enhancement, specifically arguing that the Tribunal should recalculate loss of dependency and loss of consortium to reflect the higher multiplier and income.

Contentions of Respondents

No explicit respondent arguments are quoted in the excerpt. The judgment records the appellants’ submissions and proceeds to evaluate them; any respondent submissions are not detailed in the provided text.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	[(2009) 6 SCC 121]	Positive	Court applied the multiplier principle from Sarla Verma to justify using a higher multiplier (7) for the deceased aged 60–65.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 2220 of 2010 ----------------------OPMV.541/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... ## APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. MARIYA, W/O.(LATE) MAMMED KOYA, AGED 53 YEARS. 2. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.(LATE) MAMMED KOYA, AGED 34 YEARS. 3. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.LATE MAMMED KOYA, AGED 32 YEARS. 4. MAMMOONATH, D/O.(LATE) MAMMED KOYA, AGED 30 YEARS. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIRUVOTH HOUSE, IRINGALLUR, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.) BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: - --------------- 1. ASSAAN KOYA, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA HAJI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT MELE KACHERI PUNATHIL HOUSE, PO PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE- 673019. 2. JITHESH, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALATTUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.CHATHAMANGALAM, REC, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVL.OFFICE, SEEMA BUILDING, GENERAL POST OFFICE, G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKDE-673001. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ==============================** ## **M.A.C.A. NO. 2220 OF 2010 ============================** ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of August 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Basant, J.** The claimants are the appellants. They are the wife aged 53 years and three adult children aged 30 years and above. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their husband/father who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 9/3/2007 and succumbed to the same. Against a total amount of Rs.6 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- as per the details given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below: 1)Transport to hospital : Rs.1,500/2)Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- MACA 2220/2010 2 3)Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/4)Funeral expenses : Rs. 3,000/Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/Loss of consortium : Rs.2,500/- - Loss of dependency : Rs.80,000/ (2000x12x5x2/3) Total :Rs.1,12,500/========= 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is not correctly computed. The deceased was a person of the age group 60-65 years and therefore, following the dictum in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 S.C.C.121],** 7 and not 5 should have been reckoned as the multiplier. To that extent the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is grossly in MACA 2220/2010 3 error, submits the learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that monthly income of the deceased reckoned at Rs.2,000/is also incorrect. A higher amount ought to have been accepted, it is contended. 4. No better evidence was produced. The Tribunal obviously appears to have drawn the presumption of prudence arising from clause 6 of the IInd Schedule and also considering the fact that said presumption was permitted to be drawn in 1994 and notwithstanding the lapse of 13 years, the same has not been properly updated. We are unable to find anything wrong in the approach made by the Tribunal in accepting Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. Instead of 5, we agree that 7 should have been adopted as the multiplier. 5. The only other specific ground of challenge is that the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium is painfully low. The wife was aged 53 years and the MACA 2220/2010 4 husband was aged 64 years. The amount of Rs.2500/awarded as loss of consortium is unreasonably low, contends the counsel. We agree and we are satisfied that Rs. 7500/- can be granted as compensation under that head. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves alteration at our hands. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 1)Loss of dependency :Rs.32,000/-(2000x12x2/3x7=1,12,000 – 80,000/-) 2)Loss of - - Consortium :Rs.5,000/ (7500 2500) Total :Rs.37,000/========== ## 7. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by MACA 2220/2010 5 the Tribunal. c)We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- **R.BASANT, JUDGE** **Sd/M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE** ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE 2361 Delay. The climants are the appellants. they are the wife aged 53 years and three adult children aged 30 eyars and above. they claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of th death of their husband/father who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 9/3/2007 and succumbed to the same. Against a total amount of Rs.6 lakhs claimed as compensation, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- as per details given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below: The challenge is directed only against the quantum of comepnsation. Calld upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant subsmits that the impugned award under the head of loss of dpendency is not correctly computed. the deceased was a person of the age group 60-65 years and therefore, the following the dictum in Sarla Verma..7 and not 5 should have been reckoned as the multiplier to the extent the impugned award under the head of loss of dependency is grossly in err or, submits the counsel. The learned counsel further submits that monthly income of th deceased reckoned at Rs.2,000/- is also incorrect. A higher amount ought to have been expected, it is contended. No better evidence was produced. The Tribunal obviously appears to have drawn the presumption of prudence arising from clause 6 of the IInd Schedule and also considering the fact that presumption was permitted to be drawn in 1994 and notwithstanding the lapse of 13 years, the same has snot been properly updated. We are unable to find nothing wrong in the approachcc made by the Tribunal in taking Rs........2,000/- as msonthly income instead of 5. We agree that 7 should have been adopted as the multiplier. The only other specific ground of challenge is that the impugned award under the ehad of loss of consortium is painfully low. the wife was aged 53 years, husband aged 64 years an amount of Rs.2500/- awarded as loss of consoritum is reasonably low, contends the counsel. We agree that we ar satisfied that 7500/- can be granted as compensation under that head. We are not satisfied that the impugned award under any other head deserves alteration at our hands. the above discussion lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal.