High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-09The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Mathew and others v Abdul Kathir Pothiyil and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA 227 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated by the Court: the notional income is fixed at Rs.6000 per month, future prospects are awarded at 40%, and the deduction for personal expenses is adjusted to 1/4 given five dependents. The multiplier is fixed at 18. Heads such as loss of estate, love and affection, and consortium are recalibrated in light of Pranay Sethi and Kahlon; pain and suffering and funeral expenses are adjusted consistent with the cited authorities (including Kahlon and Pranay Sethi). The total enhanced compensation is Rs.14,85,300, with interest at the rate directed for the enhanced amount from the date of petition, and NEFT/RTGS transfer within specified timelines, with set-off for any sums already paid.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mathew
Philomina
Amal Mathew
Arul Mathew
Ambil Mathew

Respondents

Abdul Kathir Pothiyil
Riyash P.A.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. N.S. NajeeB

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is MACA No. 227 of 2015, an appeal by the petitioners in OP(MV) No. 393/2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The accident occurred on 19 November 2007, when a lorry driven rashly and negligently struck a motor cycle, causing fatal injuries to a young student. The tribunal awarded compensation which the appellants challenge as grossly inadequate. The key issues include the proper assessment of notional income for a student-deceased, the eligibility for future prospects, the correct deduction for personal expenses, and the appropriate heads of damages (consortium, loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses). The appellants rely on Ramachandrappa to fix notional income at Rs.6000 per month and on Pranay Sethi for 40% future prospects, while contesting tribunal’s deduction rate and certain heads of damages. The respondents urge adherence to the tribunal’s findings on deductibility and heads. The Court enhances the notional income to Rs.6000/month, grants 40% future prospects, modifies the deduction to 1/4 due to five dependents, and recalculates compensation with a multiplier of 18, annulling certain heads (e.g., pain and suffering as per Kahlon). The result is an enhanced total compensation of Rs.14,85,300 with interest provisions and directions for payment, including NEFT/RTGS transfer and timelines. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated by the Court.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 – notional income fixed at Rs.6000 per month.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) (4) KLT 662 (SC) – 40% future prospects; appropriate deduction for personal expenses; multiplier considerations.
Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kahlon (AIR 2021 SC 3913) – pain and suffering head not allowable under certain circumstances.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased was a student and the tribunal erred by applying the second schedule method for notional income, resulting in an inappropriately low figure. Relying on Ramachandrappa, they urged fixing the notional monthly income at Rs.6000. They argued for 40% future prospects (per Pranay Sethi) given the deceased’s status as a bright student, and sought inclusion of appropriate allowances under loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and other heads. They argued that deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4 of income (not 1/3) due to five dependents. They pressed for higher compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and multiplication through a multiplier of 18. They asserted that future prospects and other heads should be calculated to reflect a fair compensation, and the amount should be transferred via NEFT/RTGS with interest as directed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the tribunal’s approach on most heads but conceded the 1/4 deduction should apply (instead of 1/3) due to multiple dependents; they argued that certain heads like pain and suffering should be in line with prevailing jurisprudence (Kahlon) and that the funeral expenses head should reflect the cap under Pranay Sethi (Rs. 15,000). They maintained adherence to the tribunal’s calculation on other heads and contested any modification beyond the grounds raised.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify fixing the notional monthly income at Rs.6000.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Guidelines for 40% future prospects and 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, influencing the calculation of compensation.
Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kahlon	AIR 2021 SC 3913	Positive	Used to constrain award on pain and suffering, aligning with Kahlon principles.

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 Mathew and others v Abdul Kathir Pothiyil 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 C. JAYACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 MACA NO. 227 OF 2015** **OP(MV) 393/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,** ## **PERUMBAVOOR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 MATHEW, S/O CHACKO THANNIKKAL HOUSE, ALAKKODU KARA, THODUPUZHA. 2 PHILOMINA W/O MATHEW, RESIDING DO. 3 AMAL MATHEW D/O MATHEW, RESIDING DO. 4 ARUL MATHEW, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O MATHEW RESIDING DO. 5 AMBIL MATHEW AGE 18 YEARS, D/O MATHEW, RESIDING DO. BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 ABDUL KATHIR POTHIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PERUMBAVOOR-682042. 2 RIYASH P.A. S/O ABDUL KHATHAR, RESIDING DO. 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, JOYTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA-685584. BY ADV SRI.N.S.NAJEEB **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON 09.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 ..2.. ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** -------------------------M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 -------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of December, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the petitioners in OP (MV) No. 393/2008 of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal Perumbavoor. The accident occurred on 19.11.2007, when the lorry driven by R2 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle driven by a 19 year old boy,resulting in grievous injuries, to which he succumbed later. The Award is challenged alleging that the compensation granted by the tribunal is grossly insufficient. 2. Heard Sri. Unnikrishran v Alappat, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. K.S Santhi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 ..3.. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was a student, at the time of accident. Even though the petitioners claimed an expected monthly income of Rs.50,000/-, the tribunal had adopted second schedule method of calculating the notional income and fixed the annual income at Rs. 10,000. This course adopted by the tribunal is wrong is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. Even going by the notional income pertaining to the year 2007, going by the judgment in **Ramachandrappa v.** **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurane Company** **Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the notional income to be taken is Rs.6000 per month. This court finds merit in the above said contention and therefore enhances the notional monthly income to Rs.6000. ## M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 ..4.. 4. Having fixed the notional income, the next issue is the eligibility for grant of future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% of the income fixed towards future prospects. The deceased being an above average student, as could be witnessed from the mark lists produced as Ext: A8 to A11, future prospects at the rate of 40% is to be reckoned, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** is the submission of the learned counsel. This contention is liable to be accepted and it is directed to reckon 'future prospects' at the rate of 40% of the income. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the tribunal went wrong in deducting 1/3 of M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 ..5.. the income towards personal expenses, whereas 1/4 is only liable to be deducted. This contention is liable to be accepted as there are 5 dependents of the deceased. 6. The next head is with respect to 'consortium'. Petitioners 1 and 2 before the Tribunal are the father and mother respectively of the deceased and other petitioner's are his siblings. The parents alone are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, the consortium payable to the claimants is Rs.88,000/-, simultaneous with obliterating Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards loss on account of love and affection. Likewise, a sum of Rs.5,000/- granted under the head 'pain and suffering' is also not allowable, in terms of the judgment in **Oriental Insurance Company v. Kahlon [AIR 2021 SC 3913].** Under the head loss of estate, ## M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** all what is seen granted is Rs.5,000/- as against the entitlement of Rs.15,000/- as per the judgment in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]** . Learned counsel also pointed out that, enhancement @10% as contemplated in Pranay Sethi supra is also liable to be allowed. However, under the head funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is seen granted which is impermissible. As per Pranay Sethi , permissible amount is Rs.15,000/-. 7. The multiplier has been wrongly applied as 16 as agreed to by both the counsel. Correct multiplier is 18. The compensation amount payable to the appellants is therefore re-worked as indicated in the tabular statement shown here below. M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 ..7.. |Sl.N o|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by the tribunal|Total amount after enhancement in appeal| |---|---|---|---| |1|Funeral expenses|25,000|16,500| |2|Transport to hospital|3,000|3,000| |3|Damages to clothes etc|500|500| |4|Medical expenses|Nil|Nil| |5|Loss of estate|2,500|16,500| |6|Pain and suffering|5000|Nil| |7|Loss of dependency|1,60,000|13,60,800| |8|Love and affection|1,00,000|Nil| |9|Future prospects|1,00,000|Nil| |10|Loss of consortium|Nil|88,000| ||Total|3,96,000|14,85,300| |Amount enhanced =Rs.10,89,300/- (Rupees Ten lakhs eighty nine thousand three hundred only)|||| Amount enhanced =Rs.10,89,300/- (Rupees Ten lakhs eighty nine thousand three hundred only) *(6000 + 2400)x12x18x3/4 8. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, ## M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 ..8.. the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 20.12.2015 in C.M.A.No.1/2015 in M.A.C.A.227/2015. 9. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2015 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** skj