High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-09Appeal allowed to the extent stated; enhanced c...

Mini Roy and others v. Abubakar, Zeenath Abubacker and The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO.281 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: The MACA is allowed to the extent indicated; the Tribunal’s award is reworked with enhanced compensation as tabulated, applying the 40% future prospects, higher income, and revised heads of damages (loss of estate, consortium, funeral expenses, etc.). The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 5% from the petition date, subject to set-off for any prior payment. Deposit/transfer of funds to the claimant’s bank account via NEFT/RTGS is mandated within the specified period. The 59-day delay in filing is excluded from interest on the enhanced amount. Overall, the appeal is allowed to the stated extent and the payment process is delineated.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed to the extent stated; enhanced compensation awarded and directed payment with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MINI ROY W/O ROY
RESHMA ROY [MINOR]
SONA ROY [MINOR]
BABY, S/O ABRAHAM
MARYKUTTY, W/O BABY

Respondents

ABOOBAKAR, S/O MOHAMMED AMEER
ZEENATH ABUBACKER
THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Mathew John (K)
• Sri. Domson J.Vattakuzhy

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Lal K.Joseph
• Sri.V.S.Shiraz Bava
• Sri.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 281 of 2015) arises from an O.P. (MV) case relating to the death of Mr. Roy in a road accident on 18.08.2012 at a water service station, where the vehicle driven by the first respondent allegedly hit the deceased. The appellants, as dependent legal heirs, challenge the Tribunal’s compensation award on multiple heads and seek enhancement based on current legal principles. The court reconsiders the deceased’s income, holding that the Tribunal’s Rs.7,000 per month is too low; applying the Ramachandrappa approach, Rs.8,500 per month is deemed appropriate for 2012. Following the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi framework, future prospects are fixed at 40%. The court then revisits various heads of damage: it increases ‘loss of estate’ from Rs.5,000 to Rs.15,000; declines the ‘pain and suffering’ component in line with Oriental Insurance v. Kahlon; recognizes compensation for ‘consortium’ for the parents and two children at Rs.40,000 each; reduces funeral expenses from Rs.25,000 to Rs.15,000; and approves a 10% enhancement for every three years. The resulting tabulated computation shows total enhanced compensation of Rs.18,69,500 against the Tribunal’s Rs.15,57,500, a difference of Rs.3,12,000. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay the enhanced amount with 5% interest from the petition date, with NEFT/RTGS transfer, and to set off any earlier payments. The appeal is allowed to this extent.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle (Ramachandrappa)
40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi, SC)
10% enhancement for every three years (Pranay Sethi, SC)
loss of consortium recognised (Pranay Sethi, SC)
pain and suffering not maintainable in view of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kahlon

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in accepting a monthly income of Rs.7,000; relying on Ramachandrappa, Rs.8,500 per month should be adopted for 2012. They urge the adoption of 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi (SC) and seek enhancement of the ‘loss of estate’ from Rs.5,000 to Rs.15,000. They challenge the ‘pain and suffering’ award in light of Oriental Insurance v. Kahlon and assert that the parents and two children are entitled to Rs.40,000 each as loss of consortium. Funeral expenses should be reduced from Rs.25,000 to Rs.15,000. They request 10% annual enhancement in line with Pranay Sethi for every three years and rely on the larger framework of MACT jurisprudence to recast the total compensation, culminating in a higher overall sum payable with interest and direct transfer of funds to the claimant’s bank account within the specified timelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	2011 KHC 4675	Positive	Court adopted Ramachandrappa's notional income framework to justify Rs.8,500/month for 2012.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Court relies on Pranay Sethi for 40% future prospects, consortium, and 10% enhancement guidance.
Oriental Insurance Company v. Kahlon	AIR 2021 SC 3913	Positive	Guides refinement of 'pain and suffering' award; reduces or disallows it per the decision.

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 Mini Roy and others v. Abubakar, Zeenath Abubacker and The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 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. 281 OF 2015** **IN O.P.(MV)NO.685/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA APPELLANTS:** - **1 MINI ROY W/O ROY, VELUTHUMMOODAYIL @ VELUTHAMODAYIL HOUSE, KATTAKALA KARA, NEDUMKANDAM VILLAGE.** - **2 RESHMA ROY [MINOR]** - **3 SONA ROY [MINOR]** - **4 BABY,S/O ABRAHAM, VELUTHUMMOODAYIL @ VELUTHAMODAYIL HOUSE, KATTAKALA KARA, NEDUMKANDAM VILLAGE.** - **5 MARYKUTTY, W/O BABY, VELUTHUMMOODAYIL @ VELUTHAMODAYIL HOUSE, KATTAKALA KARA, NEDUMKANDAM VILLAGE,** **MINOR APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1. MINI ROY, NELLIMALAYIL HOUSE, PUNCHAVAYAL POST, EDAKUNNAM KARA, ERUMELY VADAKKU VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ABOOBAKAR, S/O MOHAMMED AMEER, BLOCK NO.83, PATTOM COLONY, KALLAR POST-68552, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **2 ZEENATH ABUBACKER, 10/207, B 83, KALLAR POST, PATTOM COLONY, PAMPADUMPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552.** MACA NO.281 OF 2015 2 **3 THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, PALA-686575.** **BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON 09.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA NO.281 OF 2015 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the dependent legal heirs of one Mr.Roy, who met with a road accident on 18.08.2012, and sustained serious injuries, to which he succumbed. The accident occurred in a water service station, when the car driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, rammed on the deceased, while attempting to take the same to the ramp in the service station. The appeal is essentially directed for enhancement of compensation granted undrer various heads. **2.** Heard Sri. Mathew John, learnd counsel for the appellant and Sri. Lal K.Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the National Insurance Company. Perused the records. **3.** The learned counsel for the appellant first pointed out that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is Rs.7,000/-. Going by the index available in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal** MACA NO.281 OF 2015 4 ## **Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [2011 KHC** **4675]** , the notional income pertaining to the year 2012 is Rs.8,500/-, which at least is liable to be reckoned, is the submission. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, directs to reckon Rs.8,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Based on the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4)** **KLT 662 (SC)]** , the appellants claim future prospects to be reckoned at the rate of 40%. This submission is also perfectly in accord with law, laible to be accepted as such. **4.** Rs.5,000/- was given under the head 'loss of estate', which is laible to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). The amount given under the head 'pain and suffering' cannot be sustained as held in **Oriental Insurance Company v.** **Kahlon [AIR 2021 SC 3913].** Similarly, compensation granted under the head 'love and affection' also MACA NO.281 OF 2015 5 cannot be sustained; instead, compensation has to be granted as 'consortium'. The claimants/appellants are the parents and the two children of the deceased, each of whom are entitled to Rs.40,000/- as held in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). This Court also notices that the funeral expenses granted at the rate of Rs.25,000/- has to be reduced to Rs.15,000/- in terms of **Pranay Sethi** (supra). As pointed out by the learned counsel, enhancement @10% as contemplated in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) for every three years is also liable to be allowed. **5.** In the result, this MACA is allowed and the compensation amount payable to the claimants/appellants is reworked, as indicated in the tabular statement herein below: MACA NO.281 OF 2015 6 |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded** **by the** **Tribunal**|**Total** **amount** **after** **enhancement** **in appeal**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|10,000|10,000| |2|Extra Nourishment|---|---| |3|Damage to clothing|---|---| |4|Funeral Expenses|25,000|16,500| |5|Treatment Expenses|---|---| |6|Pain and Suffering|25,000|Nil| |7|Loss of Dependency|14,17,500|16,06,500*| |8|Loss of Estate|5,000|16,500| |9|Loss of Love and affection|25,000|Nil| |10|Loss of consortium|50,000|2,20,000 (Rs.44,000x 5| ||**Total**|**15,57,500**|**18,69,500**| |**Amount Enhanced=3,12,000/- (18,69,500-15,57,500)**|||| * 16,06,500= 11,900x12x15x3/4 MACA NO.281 OF 2015 7 **6.** 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, the same shall be granted set off. **7.** Since there was a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 19.01.2022 in C.M.A.No.1/2015 in M.A.C.A.No.281 of 2015. **8.** 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 MACA NO.281 OF 2015 **==> picture [9 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, 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** ak