High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-07Disposed of

Mohammed Shah and others v. Anitha Hari Proprietor AISWARYA POLYMER, Suresh P.G., New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2023-07-07
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of as above. The insurer is directed to deposit Rs. 4,78,400 as enhanced compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till payment, plus proportionate costs, within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MOHAMMEDSHAH
RASHEEDA SHAH
SHAHBAZ
IMTYAZ MOHAMMED SHAH

Respondents

Anitha Hari Proprietor, AISWARYA POLYMER, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT
SURESH P.G. S/O.GANGADHARAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR DISTRICT

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
• SRI.P.S.APPU
• SRI.A.R.NIMOD

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.VPK.PANICKER

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 3817 of 2017) from the Kerala High Court. The petitioners—Mohammed Shah and his siblings—challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s award of Rs. 15,93,000 as compensation for the fatal 2009 accident in which the deceased, Ijas Muhammed Shah, died after being struck by a mini lorry driven by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent. The tribunal held the 2nd respondent negligent and directed the insurer to satisfy the award. The deceased was 23 years old and an 8th semester mechanical engineering student; petitioners claimed a monthly income of Rs. 12,000. The tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs. 8,000 and added 50% towards future prospects. The court held that the income should be Rs. 12,000 and future prospects should be 40% (per Pranay Sethi), giving a notional monthly figure of Rs. 16,800. With a multiplier of 18 and a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses, dependency loss computes to Rs. 18,14,400. An amount of Rs. 12,96,000 was already awarded under this head, resulting in an enhanced sum of Rs. 5,18,400. The court held that pain and suffering should be excluded (per Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kahlon) and that loss of consortium should be Rs. 40,000 to each parent (Rs. 80,000 total). Loss of love and affection was not payable where loss of consortium applied. Loss of estate addition of Rs. 5,000 and funeral expense adjustment (Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 25,000) were made, yielding an enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,78,400. The insurer must deposit this amount with 9% interest from the petition date to payment, within two months. The appeal is disposed of as above.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

40% of income added towards future prospects (Pranay Sethi doctrine)
Deduction of one-half of income for personal and living expenses for a bachelor
No compensation for pain and suffering under certain circumstances (Oriental Insurance Company v. Kahlon)
Loss of consortium heads can supersede or exclude separate heads of loss of love and affection (practice following Satinder Kaur)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased, a 23-year-old final-year engineering student, would have earned a higher income (Rs 12,000 per month) and that future prospects should be computed at 40% (not 50%, following Pranay Sethi). They urged adoption of a notional income of Rs 12,000, with Rs 4,800 added as future prospects, and a multiplier of 18; after half deduction for personal living expenses (since the deceased was a bachelor), dependency should be Rs 18,14,400. They claimed enhanced compensation under heads including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, while seeking exclusion of pain and suffering based on Oriental S. C. v. Kahlon. They petitioned for an overall enhanced sum and swift deposit with interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The judgment does not set out explicit respondent arguments; the insurer’s counsel is noted, but the detailed contentions are not provided in the text. The decision essentially applies established principles (Pranay Sethi for future prospects, Oriental Kahlon for pain and suffering, and Satinder Kaur for loss of love/consortium interplay) to determine the appropriate enhancement and the structure of heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Applied the 40% future prospects formula instead of 50%, aligning with Pranay Sethi.
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Kahlon	AIR 2021 SC 3913	Positive	Used to deny compensation under pain and suffering.
Satinder Kaur and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.	2021 (11) SCC 780	Positive	Supports not awarding loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is provided.

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 Shah and others v. Anitha Hari Proprietor AISWARYA POLYMER, Suresh P.G., New India Assurance Company Limited 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## **`M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.P (MV) No. 2994/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1MOHAMMEDSHAH AGED 56 YEARS S/O.HYDROSE, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/14, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2RASHEEDA SHAH AGED 46 YEARS W/O.MOHAMMED SHAH, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/14, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3SHAHBAZ AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMEDSHAH, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/14,MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4IMTYAZ MOHAMMED SHAH AGED 22 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED SHAH, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/14,MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 ANITHA HARI PROPRIETOR, AISWARYA POLYMER, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680702.` - `2 SURESH P.G. S/O.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT PATHAZHAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680687.` ``` 3NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SSN SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680566. ``` M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 ``` 2 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.VPK.PANICKER SRI.VPK.PANICKER ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in O.P (MV) No. 2994/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondents in accordance with their status in the claim petition. 2. Heard Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. VPK. Panciker, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company. 3. The petitioners are the parents and brothers of deceased Ijas Muhammed Shah, who died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 13.03.2009. According to the petitioners, while the deceased was M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 ``` 4 ``` riding a motorcycle, a mini lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-8 T- 2973 driven by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent hit against the motorcycle and the deceased sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 28,82,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent and awarded an amount of Rs. 15,93,000/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award. M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 4. Contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, the petitioners have preferred this appeal. 5. The deceased was an 8[th] Semester Mechanical Engineering student. The petitioners claimed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal made a guess work and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- notionally. The accident happened on the year 2009. I find that the income claimed by the petitioners is just and reasonable and I take Rs. 12,000/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased for the of calculation of purpose compensation. 6. The Tribunal has added 50% of the income towards future prospects. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. Going by the dictum M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 ``` 6 ``` in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** only 40% of the income can be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the figure will arrive at Rs. 16,800/- (12,000 + 4,800). The multiplier to be adopted is 18. Since the deceased was a bachelor, ½ of the income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. In the light of the above factors, the compensation for loss of dependency is refixed as Rs. 18,14,400/- (16,800 x 12 x 18 x ½). Since an amount of Rs. 12,96,000/- has already been awarded under the head loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs. 5,18,400/- (18,14,400 – 12,96,000) under the said head. M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 ``` 7 ``` 7. Towards compensation for pain and suffering, an amount of Rs. 15,000 has been awarded. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Kahlon [AIR (2021) SC 3913],** the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under the head pain and suffering. Therefore, the said amount has to be deducted. 8. Towards loss of consortium, no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each [ **Pranay Sethi’s case** (supra)] **,** resulting in a total sum of Rs. 80,000/- under the said head. 9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/towards loss of love and affection. Since the petitioners are awarded compensation under the M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 ``` 8 ``` head loss of consortium, no amount can be paid under the head loss of love and affection, [ **United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780** ]. Accordingly, Rs. 1,00,000/- has to be deducted. 10. Towards loss of estate, only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- under the head loss of estate. 11. Towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is seem awarded. The petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under head funeral expenses **[Pranay Sethi’s case** (supra) **]** . Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be deducted from the said head. M.A.C.A NO. 3817 OF 2017 **==> picture [8 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** are entitled for an Accordingly, petitioners amount of Rs. 4,78,400/- (5,18,400 – 15,000 – 20,000 + 5,000 – 10,000) as enhanced compensation. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as above. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** bnu