High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-09-15MACA allowed; enhanced compensation and directi...

Mini Shaju & Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA 1470/2010

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-09-15
Court Decision / Holding: MACA allowed. The amount of compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is reworked as per the court’s calculations, with a tabulated enhancement across heads: loss of contribution and dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and transportation expenses, resulting in a total enhanced amount of Rs. 22,86,904. The Insurance Company is directed to pay interest on amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate in the impugned award, and on the enhanced amounts at 5% from the date of the petition, with set-off for any amount already paid. Claimants must provide bank details within one month of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; funds to be transferred via NEFT/RTGS within one month thereafter. If bank details are not furnished, no interest will accrue on the enhanced amount beyond the stipulated period; if the insurer fails to deposit, interest on the enhanced amount will accrue at the Tribunal’s rate from the date of petition."
Final Disposition: MACA allowed; enhanced compensation and directions issued for payment and interest.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mini Shaju
Minor Jubin K.Shaju
Minor Jaleena K.Shaju

Respondents

Abdul Rashid S/O.Ghulam Ahmad Wani
Sajad Ahammed Mir S/O.Abliani Mir
The Branch Manager M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
K.K.Joseph
Mary Joseph

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Mohanakannan
• A.R. Pravitha
• D.S. Thushara

Counsels for Respondents

• S.K. Ajay Kumar
• Sri P.V. Jyothi Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) No.3729/2003, concerning the death of Shaju in a road accident at Udampur, Jammu. The wife, two minor children, and the parents (collectively appellants) challenge the compensation awarded under various heads: loss of contribution and dependency, love and affection, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium, along with loss of estate, funeral, and transportation expenses. They rely on Pranay Sethi (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi) to contend that survivors are entitled to higher sums— Rs.40,000 for consortium per survivor and enhanced amounts for other heads; they also seek 50% future prospects given the deceased’s age (34) and contest the Tribunal’s deduction of tax and the calculation based on net pay, arguing for consideration of gross pay as per the cited decision in Sarala Verma. The insurer responds that the Tribunal’s award was sound and disputes the proposed enhancements, multiplication, and deductions. The High Court, applying Pranay Sethi and Sarala Verma, allows the appeal in part, recalculates and enhances the compensation across several heads, and awards a total enhanced sum of Rs. 22,86,904, with directions for payment and interest, including NEFT/RTGS transfer within a specified timeframe."

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi guidelines on compensation heads (loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, future prospects)
Sarala Verma on multiplier and tax deduction / net pay considerations

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submit that under the Pranay Sethi framework, each surviving member—wife, two children, and parents—should receive Rs.40,000 as loss of consortium, far exceeding the Tribunal’s Rs.10,000. They contend loss of estate and funeral expenses should be higher (Rs.15,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively) and seek 50% future prospects given the deceased’s age of 34. They contest deductions of income tax and rely on Ext.A3 showing gross pay, arguing that gross figures should guide compensation, with adjustments per Sarala Verma rather than net pay. They urge separate allowance for transportation expenses, noting Jammu as the accident location. They challenge the Tribunal’s multiplier (17) and claim it should be 16 per Sarala Verma. Overall, they seek substantial uplift in several heads, plus interest on enhanced amounts.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-insurer defends the Tribunal’s award as within acceptable bounds, arguing the calculation correctly reflects evidence and policy coverage. They contend the multiplier of 17 is appropriate, tax deductions were correctly handled, and the existing heads of compensation are properly quantified; they resist sweeping enhancements proposed by Pranay Sethi/Sarala Verma, asserting that any adjustments should be narrowly tailored to the evidence and statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Court relies on Pranay Sethi guidelines to determine higher compensation for survivors (consortium, funeral, etc.).
Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Court applies multiplier and tax deduction principles from Sarala Verma in determining the correct compensation and net pay treatment.

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 Shaju & Others v. United India 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 THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944 MACA NO. 1470 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.4.2010 IN OPMV 3729/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:** 1 MINI SHAJU, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.LATE K.J.SHAJU, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE,, P.O.ATTORE, VIA-CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK,, PIN- 680 592, THRISSUR. 2 MINOR JUBIN K.SHAJU S/O.LATE SHAJU, AGED 11 YEARS, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE, P.O.ATTORE, VIA-CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592, THRISSUR. 3 MINOR JALEENA.K.SHAJU, D/O.LATE K.J.SHAJU AGED 9 YEARS, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE, P.O.ATTORE,, VIA-CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592,, THRISSUR. MINORS 2 AND 3 REP.BY NEXT FRIEND, GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND CLAIMANTS 4 & 5:** 1 ABDUL RASHID S/O.GHULAM AHMAD WANI, RESIDENT OF SHA GUND SONA, WARI, BARAMULLA DISTRICT, KASHMIR, PIN 193 203. 2 SAJAD AHAMMED MIR, S/O.AB LIANI MIR RESIDENT OF COURT ROAD, SOPOORE, JAMMU & KASHMIR, PIN 193 201. MACA 1470/2010 2 - 3 THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SOPORE, CONGRESS BUILDING, COLLEGE ROAD, JAMMU & KASHMIR, PIN 193 201. - 4 K.K.JOSEPH AGED 69 YEARS S/O.KURUVILA, KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE,, P.O.ATTORE, VIA- CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592, THRISSUR. - 5 MARY JOSEPH, 66 YEARS, W/O.K.K.JOSEPH KALAPPURA THATTEL HOUSE, P.O.ATTORE, VIACHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 592, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. S.K.AJAY KUMAR FOR R3 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 1470/2010 3 C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------MACA No.1470 of 2010 ------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of September, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T 1. The wife, children and parents of one Mr.Shaju – who died in a road accident at Udampur in Jammu – who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV) No.3729/2003 are the appellants. They assail the award dated 26.4.2010, essentially on the ground of inadequacy of compensation granted under various heads. 2. Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that all what is granted under the head of 'loss of consortium' is Rs.10,000/-, as against the appellants' entitled for Rs.40,000/- each to the wife, two children and parents, going by the judgment in MACA 1470/2010 4 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased is survived by his wife, two children and parents, each of whom are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. It is so held. 4. Under the head 'loss of estate', what is granted by the Tribunal is only Rs.10,000/-, as against the appellants' entitlement for Rs.15,000/-, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). The same is the situation with respect to funeral expenses also, where the Tribunal has reckoned only Rs.5,000/-. Compensation under this head is also liable to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). 5. Learned counsel also pointed out that the appellants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 50%, since the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of death, which claim is also liable to be reckoned. 6. Another anomaly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to the alleged deduction of tax and the reckoning the net pay MACA 1470/2010 5 for the purpose of compensation by the Tribunal. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Ext.A3, which is the pay slip of the deceased, who was working in the Air Force. There, going by the first column, the total credit is Rs.10,687/-. Going by the second column to Ext.A3, total debit is Rs.3,594/-. It is important to note that there is no deduction corresponding to income tax and the net pay is taken as Rs.7,093/- in the last, but one row of Ext.A3. The point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in as much as there is no tax component, the total credit in Ext.A3 is liable to be reckoned. Going by the judgment in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , all what is liable to be deducted is the tax component alone. Although the submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company, this Court finds force in the same. This Court notices that the debits are on account of the PF subscriptions, PF arrears, GIS etc; and as against the head 'i-tax', no amount is seen debited. It may also have to be noticed that the annual income going by Ext.A3 pay slip is less than Rs.1,50,000/-, the MACA 1470/2010 6 taxable limit pertaining to the year 2002. Therefore, reckoning of the net salary for the purpose of the income cannot be sustained. The total credit is liable to be taken into account and it is so done. 7. Finally, learned counsel for the appellants contended that no separate amount has been granted towards transportation expenses. Instead, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. The course adopted by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. This Court has already found that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, wherefore, this Court separately fix the transportation expenses at Rs.5,000/-, taking note of the fact that the accident occurred at Jammu. 8. As against the above claims of the appellants, learned counsel for the third respondent pointed out that the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of his death, wherefore, the correct multiplier, which should have been applied as per the judgment in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , is 16 and the Tribunal erred in reckoning the multiplier as 17. It was also pointed MACA 1470/2010 7 out that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads 'love and affection' and 'pain and suffering' has to be obliterated. These contentions of the third respondent are also liable to be accepted. 9. In the result, this M.A.C.A is allowed and the amount of compensation payable to the appellants/ claimants is reworked as indicated in the tabular column shown hereinbelow: |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)|Total amount after enhancement in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Compensation towards loss of contribution and dependency|9,64,512|2,051,904| |2|Compensation towards loss of love and affection|10000|Nil| |3|Compensation towards loss of pain and suffering|5000|Nil| |4|Compensation towards loss of consortium|10000|200000 (40000x5)| |5|Compensation towards loss of estate|10000|15000| |6|Funeral expenses|5000|15000| |7|Transportation expenses|-|5000| ||Total|10,04,500|22,86,904| ||Amount enhanced = Rs.12,82,404/- 10,04,500)||(22,86,904 –| *[10687x12x(150/100)x16x(2/3)] MACA 1470/2010 8 10. 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 amounts at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month 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 furnished 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, interest on enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE jg