Meenakshy Ammal & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 1 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2838 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.03.2018 IN OP(MV) NO.917 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ``` ## **`APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:`** ``` RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. MANGALAM TOWERS, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL CLAIMS MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. TAPAS VARMA A. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1MEENAKSHY AMMAL AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNA THEVAR, CHEENICODE KALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 601. ``` ``` 2UMAPARVATHY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN, CHEENICODE KALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-673 601. ``` - **`3 SHYAM, AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.CHANDRAN, CHEENICODE KALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-673 601.`** - **`4 SAJITH,`** ``` AGED 20 YEARS,S/O.CHANDRAN, CHEENICODE KALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-673 601. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.3984/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 3984 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.03.2018 IN OP(MV) NO.917 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 MEENAKSHY AMMAL.,`** - **`AGED 80 YEARS, W/O KRISHNA THEVAR,`** - **`2 UMAPARVATHY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O CHANDRAN,`** - **`3 SHYAM,`** ``` AGED 22 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN, ``` - **`4 SAJITH,`** ``` AGED 20 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN, ``` ``` ALL THE APPELLANTS RESIDING AT CHEENICODE KALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. BABY MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:`** ``` RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MANGALAM TOWERS,T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 014 (INSURER OF CAR REG.KL-49/D-5425). ``` ``` (POLICY NO 2209552311003820)(VALID FROM 11/12/2015 TO 10/12/2016) ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. TAPAS VARMA A. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA 2838/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.917/ 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad are the appellants in MACA No.3984 of 2018. The Respondent No. 2 in the said OP MV is the appellant in MACA No.2838 of 2018. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the mother, wife and children of the deceased by name Chandran, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.01.2016. According to the petitioners, on 25.01.2016, at about 6.45 a.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle through the public road, a car having reg. number KL-49-D-5425 driven by the 1[st] Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner cum driver and the 2[nd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,87,448/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 preferred MACA 2838 of 2018 and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation, petitioners preferred MACA 3984 of 2018. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Sri. Tapas Varma A. , the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company and Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel for the original petitioners. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the tribunal has applied the split multiplier method for assessing the loss of dependency, which is against law. Further, he submits that the tribunal was not justified in deducting half of the pension while fixing the notional income of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the deceased was working as Tracksman in Indian Railway, earning Rs. 42,234/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.28,804/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would argue that the tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation under the head loss of love and affection, in addition to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium. 12. From the impugned award itself, it is revealed that the ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` deceased was getting a salary of Rs.21405/- and also Rs.20,829/towards pension. Therefore, the total income from salary and pension will come to Rs.42,234/-. The tribunal has deducted half of the pension on the ground that his wife will get half of the pension by way of family pension. 13. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Maya Singh & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.** , (arising out of SLP (C)No.30398 of 2019) decided on 07.02.2025, in support of his argument. In the above decision, the Apex Court at paragraph No.11 held that unless there is any special reasons, the tribunal will not be justified in applying split multiplier method in assessing loss of dependency. In the above circumstances, in this case, the notional income of the of the deceased is liable to be taken as Rs.42,234/-. Therefore, his annual income during the year 2015-16 will come to Rs.5,06,508/- ( 42234 x 12). 14. During the year 2016-17, there was no income tax for the first 2.5 lakhs and for the income exceeding Rs.2.5 Lakh - upto 5 lakhs, income tax payable was 10% and for income exceeding 5 Lkahs but upto 10 lakhs it was 20%. Therefore, the income tax payable by the deceased for the income of Rs.5,06,808/- was Rs.26,360/-. Therefore, ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` the annual income of the deceased, less the income tax will come to Rs.4,80,440/-. Therefore, the monthly income after deducting the income tax will come to Rs.40,037/-. 15. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 53 years and was a permanent employee. Therefore, 15% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in **National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 11, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121]. Since the deceased was married who left behind 4 dependents (mother, wife and two major children). Therefore, the tribunal has deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal and living expense. Law is well settled that even if the children are major there is no bar for them to claim compensation for loss of dependency and as such only ¼ income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expense, as held in **Sarla Verma** (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.45,58,212/- (46042.55 x 12 x11 x 3/4). 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/-towards love and affection. In the light ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (mother, wife and two major children) are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,93,600/- (48,400 x 4). 17. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in **New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others,** (2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted. 18. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the appellants/Petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.48,18,112/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded**<br>**by Tribunal (in**<br>**Rs.)**|**Amount Awarded**<br>**in Appeal (in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|4,000|4,000| |2|Damage to clothing and<br>article|1,000|1,000| |3|Funeral expenses|15,000|18,150| |4|Compensation for loss of<br>estate|15,000|18,150| ||Loss of consortium|40,000|1,93,600| |6|Compensation for pain and<br>suffering|10,000|25,000| |7|Loss of love and affection|50,000|Nil| |8|Compensation for loss of<br>dependency|22,52,448|45,58,212| ||**Total**|**23,87,448/-**|**48,18,112/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.24,30,664/-||| 21. In the result, these Appeal are disposed of, and the insurance company is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.48,18,112/- (Rupees Forty eight lakhs eighteen thousand one hundred and twelve Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at ``` 10 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25314 ``` ``` MACA Nos.2838 & 3984 of 2018 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** the rate ordered by the Tribunal) from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 113 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs in MACA 3984 of 2018, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). 22. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- ## **C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE** S.M.K.