High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-06-09Partly allowed; enhanced compensation with addi...

Mary Francis and others v. Ramankutty and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N.NAGARESH
Judgment Date: 2020-06-09
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal’s award is enhanced by directing the 3rd respondent (insurer) to pay an additional compensation of Rs 4,81,200 with interest at 7.5% from the date of OP(MV) within one month. The enhanced amounts account for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, replacing the earlier sums and applying the Ramachandrappa, Sarla Verma, and Pranay Sethi guidelines as interpreted by this court.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; enhanced compensation with additional Rs 4,81,200 to be paid within one month along with 7.5% interest from the date of the OP(MV).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mary Francis, W/o. Late Francis, Chirayath House, Marathakkara, Ollur, Thrissur District
Tojan C.P., S/o. Late Francis, Chirayath House, Marathakkara, Ollur, Thrissur District
Shajan, S/o. Late Francis, Chirayath House, Marathakkara, Ollur, Thrissur District
Jenson, S/o. Late Francis, Chirayath House, Marathakkara, Ollur, Thrissur District

Respondents

Ramankutty, S/o.Kunju Nair, Thazhekkat House, Maca.No.1306 of 2014(C)
Nayarangadi, Kallo or, Puthukkad, Thrissur District-680001
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Maheswari Building, M.G. Road, Thrissur-680001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval
• Sri. R. Rajitha
• Sri. K.D. Sreeram

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M. Jacob Murickan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Vehicles Act appeal under MACA No.1306 of 2014(C) in the Kerala High Court, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s award in OP(MV) No.2172/2006 dated 31-08-2013. The deceased, Jaison, a 31-year-old self-employed jewellery worker, sustained fatal injuries when a car allegedly driven rashly by the first respondent hit his motorcycle on 23.04.2006 near Thrikkur-Ollur road. The Tribunal awarded Rs 4,75,000 in compensation across heads including medical, funeral, pain and suffering, transportation, and loss of love/affection, with some amounts not fully supported by evidence. The appellants argued the income of the deceased was understated (notional income of Rs 3,000/month), failed to include future prospects, and under-compensated for loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and other heads. The insurer argued no evidence of negligence and that the awarded sums were reasonable. The High Court primarily accepted the deceased as a self-employed jewellery worker and, relying on Ramachandrappa, Sarla Verma, and Pranay Sethi, recalculated notional income to Rs 5,500/month with 50% deduction for living expenses and 40% addition for future prospects, resulting in a higher loss of dependency (7,39,200) and revised totals. The court enhanced loss of estate and funeral expenses per Pranay Sethi, substituted “love and affection” with loss of consortium, and directed payment of an additional Rs 4,81,200 with 7.5% interest within one month. The appeal is allowed in part; the respondent-insurer is directed to comply with the enhanced award.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income for self-employed persons — Ramachandrappa (2011) 13 SCC 236
50% deduction towards personal living expenses for a bachelor — Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) 6 SCC 121
40% addition towards future prospects — Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121
Standardised compensation heads for non-pecuniary losses and estate/funeral expenses — National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in (i) fixing the deceased’s notional income as Rs. 3,000 per month and not considering future prospects; (ii) under-compensating for transportation, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses and, crucially, for loss of consortium; and (iii) inadequately calculating loss of dependency by not applying the Ramachandrappa framework and Sarla Verma guidelines. They contended the deceased’s occupation as a self-employed jewellery worker warranted higher notional income (Rs. 5,500/month) and that future prospects (40%) must be added; accordingly, the Tribunal’s award should be enhanced.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contended there was no credible evidence of the deceased’s income or business, the policy coverage was admitted but negligence was denied, and the Tribunal’s awards on transportation, bystander expenses, and other heads were just and reasonable. It was urged that no loss of consortium was proven and the appellate court should not interfere with the award except within the established factual matrix.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to fix notional monthly income for self-employed individuals at Rs 5,500 in 2006 (instead of Rs 3,000) and for related computation of dependency.
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Applied for 50% deduction of notional income for personal living expenses and 40% addition for future prospects to compute dependency.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used for standardised assessment of head losses (loss of estate, funeral expenses) and updating compensation as per guidelines.

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 Mary Francis and others v. Ramankutty and others 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 N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942** **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.2172/2006 DATED 31-08-2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**MARY FRANCIS,**| |---|---| ||**W/O.LATE FRANCIS,**| ||**CHIRAYATH HOUSE,**| ||**MARATHAKKARA,**| ||**OLLUR,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**TOJAN.C.P.,**| ||**S/O.LATE FRANCIS,**| ||**CHIRAYATH HOUSE,**| ||**MARATHAKKARA,**| ||**OLLUR,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**SHAJAN,**| ||**S/O.LATE FRANCIS,**| ||**CHIRAYATH HOUSE,**| ||**MARATHAKKARA,**| ||**OLLUR,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**JENSON**| ||**S/O.LATE FRANCIS,**| ||**CHIRAYATH HOUSE,**| ||**MARATHAKKARA,**| ||**OLLUR,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL**| ||**SMT.R.RAJITHA**| ||**SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH**| ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 RAMANKUTTY, S/O.KUNJU NAIR, THAZHEKKAT HOUSE,** **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** ## **:2:** **NAYARANGADI, KALLOOR, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** **2 JAYASREE RAMANKUTTY, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, THAZHEKKAT HOUSE, NAYARANGADI, KALLOOR, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** **3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** **:3:** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 9[th] day of June, 2020**_ Mother and siblings of deceased Jaison, who are the petitioners in OP(MV) No.2172/2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, are in appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The appellants-petitioners contended before the Tribunal that on 23.04.2006 while Jaison was riding a motorcycle through Thrikkur - Ollur public road, the 1[st] respondent drove a car rashly and negligently and hit against the motorcycle. The deceased Jaison sustained lethal injuries. He was admitted in Elite Mission Hospital, Koorkkenchery and was treated there from 23.04.2006 to 01.05.2006. The deceased was then taken to MOSE Medical College, **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** ## **:4:** Kolenchery, where treatment continued up to 10.05.2006, on which date, Jaison succumbed to injuries. The appellants claimed that the deceased was a businessman in gold and claimed 10 lakhs as compensation. ₹ 3. The 3[rd] respondent-insurer admitted of giving a valid policy to the 2[nd] respondent-insured. However, the 3[rd] respondent contended that there was no negligence on the part of the Driver of the car. The 3[rd] respondent denied the averments of the petitioners relating to age, occupation and income of the deceased. The petitioners produced Exts.A1 to A10 documents. The respondents produced Ext.B1 copy of insurance policy. 4. The Tribunal, after evaluation of evidence, come to the conclusion that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1[st] respondent in OP(MV) and awarded an amount of 4,75,000/- as compensation to the ₹ appellants under the following heads:- ## **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** ## **:5:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **Claimed** **(Rs.)**|**Amount** **awarded** **(Rs.)**|**Basis vital** **details in a nut** **shell**| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning (Total)|||| |2|Loss of earning (Partial)|||| |3|Medical expenses|20,000|1,20,400|| |4|Funeral expenses|2,35,000|10,000|| |5|Bystander expenses|15,000|3,800|| |6|Transportation expenses|5,000|1,000|| |7|Extra nourishment|5,000|1,700|| |8|Damage to clothing|5,000||| |9|Pain and suffering|50,000|20,000|| ||Loss of dependency Loss of estate Loss of love and affection to petitioners 2 to 4 and loss of affection to the 1stpetitioner Loss of support Loss of consortium Loss of amenities|5,00,000 50,000 60,000 1,00,000 5,000 2,00,000|2,88,000 5,000 15,000 10,000|1500 x 12 x 16| ||Total Limited to/rounded to|12,50,000 10,00,000|4,74,900 4,75,000|| The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing the OP(MV). The 3[rd] respondent-insurer was directed to pay the amount. 5. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded, the petitioners in the OP(MV) are in appeal. 6. The counsel for the appellants pointed out that the deceased was aged 31 years and was hospitalised for 17 days consequent to the accident. The deceased was a self- **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** **:6:** employed jewellery worker earning 8,000/- per month. The₹ tribunal however assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹3,000/- per month. This has substantially reduced the amount of compensation. The Tribunal had no reason to disbelieve the appellants in the matter of income of the deceased. 7. The counsel for the appellants further pointed out that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation and bystander expenses, has to be increased. The tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects of the deceased while arriving at his notional income, which was not done. The appellants are therefore entitled to consequential enhancement on that count also. The learned counsel further argued that the amount granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, loss of estate and funeral expenses is also quite on the lower side and need revision. The appellants are entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium, which was not granted by the Tribunal. In the **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** ## **:7:** circumstances, the impugned Award is liable to be modified enabling the petitioners to receive a higher compensation. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent strongly opposed the arguments of the appellants. The Standing Counsel pointed out that no scrap of paper was produced to prove the income of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was doing business in jewellery. The amounts granted by the Tribunal towards transportation, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, loss of estate and funeral expenses are just and reasonable. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent fairly admitted that the appellants have to be awarded compensation towards loss of consortium as per the standardised rates. In such event, the compensation granted under the head love and affection is to be merged with the compensation for loss of consortium. The appeal is devoid of any merit and it is liable to be rejected, contended the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** ## **:8:** 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and considered the pleadings in the case and perused the materials on record. 10. It is a fairly admitted case that the deceased Jaison was a self-employed jewellery worker. The Tribunal fixed his notional monthly income at 3,000/-. Going by the guidelines₹ given in the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.**_ _**Ltd.** [(2011) 13 SCC 236]_ , the notional income of a selfemployed person for the year 2006 has to be fixed as 5,500/-₹ per month in the absence of other evidence. The notional income of 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is very low. The₹ monthly income of the deceased should therefore be taken as ₹5,500/-. 11. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** ## **:9:** ## _**Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation**_ _**and another** [(2009) 6 SCC 121]_ . The notional monthly income then will be 2,750/-. An addition of 40% has to be₹ made towards future prospects as the deceased was a self-employed person below the age of 41 years. Adding 40% towards future prospects, the notional income of the deceased has to be fixed at 3,850/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the₹ compensation for loss of dependency to which the appellants are eligible, would be 7,39,200/-. Since the Tribunal has₹ already granted ₹2,88,000/- for loss of dependency, the appellants will be eligible for an additional compensation of ₹4,51,200/- under this head. 12. The Tribunal has granted ₹1,000/towards compensation for transportation expenses and ₹3,800/towards bystander expenses, which amounts are just and reasonable. The Tribunal also has granted 20,000/- towards₹ pain and suffering which also need no modification. 13. It is seen that the Tribunal has granted only 5,000/-₹ **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** as compensation towards loss of estate. Going by the standardised rates stipulated in _**National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680],_ this amount is to be enhanced. Accordingly, the appellants will be eligible for ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate as against ₹5,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted 10,000/-₹ towards funeral expenses. Compensation under this head also requires modification. The appellants will be eligible for an additional compensation of 5,000/- towards funeral expenses,₹ by increasing the total compensation under this head to ₹15,000/-. 14. The counsel for the appellants argued that no amount is granted to the appellants towards compensation for loss of consortium. Going through the Award of the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has granted 25,000/- towards loss of₹ love and affection. In the facts of the case, in substitution of ₹25,000/- granted by the Tribunal as compensation for love and affection, the appellants are held to be entitled to **MACA.No.1306 OF 2014(C)** **:11:** ₹40,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium. In the circumstances, MACA is allowed in part and it is declared that the appellants will be eligible to an additional amount of 4,81,200/- as additional compensation, under the₹ ## following heads:- - (i) Additional compensation towards loss of dependency 4,51,200 (₹3,850/- x 12 x 16 minus 2,88,000/- already awarded₹ by the Tribunal) - (ii) Additional compensation towards loss of estate ₹10,000 (₹15,000/- minus 5,000/- already awarded by the₹ Tribunal) - (iii) Additional compensation towards funeral expenses ₹5,000 (₹15,000/- minus 10,000/- already awarded by the₹ Tribunal) - (iv) Additional compensation towards love and affection ₹15,000 after substitution (₹40,000/- minus 25,000/- awarded₹ by the Tribunal towards love and affection) **Total ₹4,81,200** The 3[rd] respondent is directed to pay the additional compensation of 4,81,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%₹ from the date of the OP(MV) within a period of one month. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/06/06/2020