High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-01-03Judgment delivered by a Single Judge on 3 Janua...

Mohammed @ Mohammedkutty and Others v Manoj and K.P. Alavi and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 1582 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Babu
Judgment Date: 2018-01-03
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. Appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs. 4,00,000/- as enhanced compensation, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing before the tribunal to the date of deposit of the enhanced amount. The enhanced compensation, with interest and proportionate costs, must be deposited before the tribunal within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, and apportionment shall follow the tribunal’s determination.
Final Disposition: Judgment delivered by a Single Judge on 3 January 2018. The appeal is allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded; directions for payment and deposit as specified. Neutral citation: not provided in the document.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohammed @ Mohammedkutty
Pathumma
Salmath
Mohammed Shareef

Respondents

Manoj
K.P. Alavi
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri G. Sreekumar (Chelur)
• Sri K. Ravi (Pariyarath)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri George Cherian (Thiruvalla)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Muhammed Salim, a young motorcycle rider, died in a road accident on 6 March 2009 when a mini lorry driven by the 1st respondent struck him. His parents and siblings approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 8,16,000, which was partly allowed (Rs. 4,12,000). The appellants challenge the quantum, arguing for higher loss of dependency and for non-pecuniary heads (pain and suffering, love and affection, funeral expenses). The Tribunal treated the deceased with a notional income and applied a multiplier of 13, citing the victim’s age for the appropriate factor, and did not award amounts for pain and suffering, love and affection, or funeral expenses beyond Rs. 5,000. The respondents contested negligence and income, disputing the claimed profession and income, and supported the insurer’s policy. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, recalculated the loss of dependency, applying the principles from Sarala Verma and Pranay Sethi to determine an appropriate multiplier (18 for age 20) and the 40% addition and 50% deduction for personal expenses, resulting in an enhanced figure. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the appeal, awarding Rs. 4,00,000 as enhanced compensation with 7% interest from the date of filing and costs, directing deposit within two months.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in the quantum, relying on notional income and a multiplier that did not reflect the deceased’s age. They urge recalculation under the standard formula laid down in Sarala Verma and Pranay Sethi, arguing for a higher multiplier (18 for age 20) and for added headages such as pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, and higher funeral expenses. They maintain the victim’s family suffered substantial losses and seek a fair, updated computation of dependency loss.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents challenge the amount and the approach to dependency loss. They argue the Tribunal correctly assessed negligence and that the award was within the evidence. They resist substantial increases in compensation and emphasize the need to adhere to the established facts, including the deceased’s income and profession as contested by the appellants.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	AIR 2009 SC 3104	Positive	Used to determine the appropriate multiplier for the age group 15-25, supporting the 18 multiplier for the deceased’s age.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	(2017 (5) KHC 350)	Positive	Cited for the formula of loss of dependency: 40% addition to income and 50% deduction for personal expenses.

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 Mohammed @ Mohammedkutty and Others v Manoj and K.P. Alavi and Bajaj Allianz General 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 A.M.BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 13TH POUSHA, 1939 MACA.No. 1582 of 2012 OPMV 467/2009 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 04-01-2012 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS : - 1 MOHAMMED @ MOHAMMEDKUTTY, 47 YEARS OF OLD, S/O. MUHAMMED - 2 PATHUMMA, 41 YEARS OF OLD, W/O. MOHAMMED @ MOHAMMEDKUTTY. - 3 SALMATH, 24 YEARS OF OLD, D/O. MOHAMMED @ MOHAMMEDKUTTY - 4 MOHAMMED SHAREEF, 21 YEARS OF OLD, S/O. MOHAMMED @ MOHAMMEDKUTTY - ( ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT KARANDIPURAM HOUSE, VARODE.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK.) BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : 1. MANOJ, 27 YEARS, - S/O. CHANDRAN, ITTINAMBIARTHODI VEEDU, THARUVAKONAM, CHALAVARA P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK. (DRIVER OF THE MINI LORRY NO. KL/04-S-8656), PIN-679101 2. K.P. ALAVI, S/O. MUHAMMED, KARIKKAUMPURATH HOUSE, PARAL, THOOTHA.P.O., VIA ANAMANGAD, PERINTHALMANNA.-679322 (RC OWNER OF MINI LORRY NO. KL/04-S-8656) MACA.No. 1582 of 2012 -2- 3. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. GE PLAZA AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE-411 006 MAHARASHTRA. (INSURER OF MINI LORRY NO.KL/04-S-8656) R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **A.M.BABU, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.1582 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 3[rd] January, 2018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.A person by name Muhammed Salim died in a road accident. He was a bachelor. His parents and siblings moved the motor accidents claims tribunal for compensation. The claim was Rs.8,16,000/-. The claim was allowed to the extent of Rs.4,12,000/-. The claimants are in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. - 2.The case of the appellants may be briefly stated as follows : It was at 11.15 am on 6.3.2009 the accident. Muhammed Salim who was riding a motor cycle was knocked down by a mini lorry bearing registration no.KL 4 S 8656. It came from the opposite direction. The lorry was driven by the 1[st] respondent. Its owner was the 2[nd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent was the insurer. The victim was seriously injured. He breathed his last on the way to the hospital. **MACA.1582/12** 2 The rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1[st] respondent was the cause of the accident. - 3.Respondents 1 and 2 in their joint written statement denied the allegation that the former was rash and negligent in driving the lorry. According to them, the victim who rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner was solely responsible for the accident. Respondents 1 and 2 disputed the age, income and occupation of the victim. - 4.The 3[rd] respondent in its written statement supported the contentions of respondents 1 and 2. The policy of the insurance was admitted. - 5.PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the appellants. Exts B1 to B3 were marked on the other side. - 6.Heard Sri.K.Ravi(Pariyarath) and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellants and the **MACA.1582/12** 3 ## 3[rd] respondent respectively. 7.The quantum of compensation alone is the subject-matter in the appeal. It is therefore not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the tribunal on the question of negligence. The appellants who are the claimants are the parents and siblings of Muhammed Salim who lost his life in the accident. According to the appellants, Muhammed Salim was a driver by profession. But no acceptable evidence was adduced in support of the said contention. Therefore the tribunal rightly had taken a notional income. The tribunal had taken Rs.5000/- per month as the notional income. The multiplier adopted by the tribunal was 13. That multiplier was taken considering the average age of the parents of the victim. Multiplier should be taken on the basis of the age of the victim. It has been held so in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017 (5) KHC 350) . The victim died at the **MACA.1582/12** 4 age of 20 years. The proper multiplier going by Sarala verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SC 3104) for the age group between 15 to 25 is 18. It has been held in Pranay Sethi 's case (supra) that 40% of the established income shall be added. It is also held in the same decision that after adding 40%, 50% shall be deducted considering the personal expenses of the victim. In view of what have been stated above, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' shall be re-worked. The figure comes to Rs.7,56,000/- (5000 x 12 x 18 + 40% - 50%). After deducting the amount of Rs.3,90,000/awarded by the tribunal, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.3,66,000/-. - 8.The tribunal did not allow any amount towards pain and sufferings. The evidence suggests that the victim survived for some time after the incident. Necessarily he must have had pain and sufferings. I consider Rs.12,000/- to be just and reasonable compensation under the said head. **MACA.1582/12** 5 9.The parents and siblings lost their dear in an unfortunate accident. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection appears to be on the lower side. I allow Rs.12,000/- more towards love and affection. Towards funeral expenses, only Rs.5000/- was allowed. It should be Rs.15,000/- in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi 's case (supra). The different figures total to Rs.4,00,000/-. The same shall be the enhanced compensation to which the appellants are entitled. - 10.The appeal is allowed in part. Appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs only) as enhanced compensation. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal till the date of deposit of the enhanced compensation before it. Apportionment of the compensation shall be as stated by the tribunal. Appellants are entitled to 6 ## **MACA.1582/12** proportionate costs as well. The enhanced compensation with interest and proportionate costs shall be deposited before the tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/A.M.BABU Judge** Mrcs/3.1.18 /True copy/ P.S.To Judge