High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-04-09Partially Allowed; enhanced compensation awarde...

Molamma and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1957 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-04-09
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified. The appellants/petitioners are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,17,625 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of application till realisation. The petitioners are not entitled to interest for a period of 259 days for the enhanced amount.
Final Disposition: Partially Allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; 259 days interest denied

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Molamma W/o Thankappan
Soumya @ ShailaJa d/o Thankappan
Remya Thankappan d/o Thankappan

Respondents

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kunjamma W/o Pushkaran
Pushkaran S/o Paramu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil)
• Sri. K.B. Arunkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew
• Sri. Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from an appeal by the legal heirs of deceased Thankappan challenging an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in O.P.(MV) No.731/2010 (joined with 1042/2010). The Tribunal had awarded Rs.7,50,250, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of application to realization. The appellants argued that the deceased’s income and the dependency calculation were understated. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., they contended that the deceased, a coolie, ought to have a higher monthly income; on the basis of 4,500 (in 2004) and the later evidence, the High Court fixed Rs.7,500 as monthly income and added future prospects of 25%, yielding Rs.9,375 per month. With age 48 and a multiplier of 13, the dependency figure would be Rs.10,96,875; after deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs.5,69,250, the balance is Rs.5,27,625. The petitioners seek Rs.2,00,000 for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 each for five claimants) and Rs.25,000 for funeral expenses, challenging the court’s earlier allocation. The petitioners also sought higher compensation to reflect Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram (and Pranay Sethi) for head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The respondents urged restraint on enhancement, including disallowance of interest for 259 days due to delay in filing. The High Court, however, allowed the appeal in part, increasing the total to Rs.6,17,625 with 7.5% interest from filing, and denying the 259-day interest.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.5,000; relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., they argued the basis should be Rs.7,500 with 25% future prospects, totaling Rs.9,375 per month, and with a multiplier of 13 and 3/4 dependency multiplier, leading to a revised dependency figure of about Rs.10,96,875. After deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs.5,69,250, the balance is Rs.5,27,625. They sought Rs.2,00,000 for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 each for five claimants) and Rs.25,000 for funeral expenses, challenging the court’s earlier allocation. They also urged the head of loss of consortium be adjusted per Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram and the principles in Pranay Sethi for funeral expenses. The respondents urged restraint on enhancement, including disallowance of interest for 259 days due to delay in filing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, led by the insurer’s counsel, opposed large enhancements and urged that the appeal be kept in check; they argued the appeal was filed after a long delay of 259 days and, as per the court’s order, enhanced interest for that period should be disallowed; they supported the tribunal’s basis for compensation and urged no drastic deviation beyond what the law permits.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify higher baseline monthly income for calculation of dependency (coolie principle).
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Cited in context of funeral expenses and consistency with Pranay Sethi principles for compensation heads.
Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram	2018 (18) SCC 130	Positive	Used to justify Rs.40,000 per claimant for loss of consortium per Magma 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 Molamma and 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943** **MACA.No.1957 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.07.2013 IN OPMV 731/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:** - **1 MOLAMMA W/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2 SOUMYA @ SHAILAJA D/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **3 REMYA THANKAPPAN D/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.4 AND PETITIONERS 4 AND 5:** - **1 THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, J.J ARCADE, DESHABHIMANI JUNCTION, N.H ROAD, KALOOR 682 017.** **2 KUNJAMMA W/O.PUSHKARAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686506** **3 PUSHKARAN S/O.PARAMU, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686506.** M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 2 **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1957 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.731/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. It is a claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased Thankappan who died in a motor vehicle accident. The above claim petition was disposed of along with O.P.(MV) No.1042/10. (Hereinafter, the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The facts are like this: On 23.7.2010, at 7.30 p.m., the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1042/2010 was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-5/G-3336 through Kanjirappally-Manimala public road. The deceased Thankappan M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 4 was a pillion rider of the motorcycle. When the motorcycle reached at a place Mannanplavu, a goods autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-11 U-4693 driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle in which Thankappan and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1042/2010 travelled. As a result of it, both of them fell down. Thankappan sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent who was driving the goods autorikshaw. The third respondent is the R.C owner and the fourth respondent is the insurer of the autorikshaw. 3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the petitioners. One witness was examined on the side of the petitioners as PW1. After going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that the petitioners are entitled a total compensation of Rs.7,50,250/with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of ## M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 5 compensation, this appeal is filed. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellants/petitioners and the standing counsel for the insurance company. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. According to the counsel, the deceased was a worker in a poultry farm. He was getting an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month. But no evidence was adduced by the petitioners to prove the same. It is true that Ext.A9 was produced before the trial court. But the same is not proved in a manner known to law. In such circumstances, such a document cannot be accepted. But the fact remains that even a coolie will get more than Rs.5,000/- in the year 2010. If the principle in the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,** **(2011 (13) SCC 236)** is taken into consideration, a collie will get at least Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. If that is taken as the basis, this Court can safely fix the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/-. Then the question is about the M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 6 multiplier which is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal accepted the age of the petitioner in Exts.A3 and A4, which are the postmortem certificate and inquest report. In those documents, the age of the deceased is shown as 55 years and 52 years respectively. But Ext.A8 is the electoral identity card issued to the deceased. From this, it is clear that as on 1.1.2005, the age of the deceased was 43. Then the age of the deceased will be 48 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the age of the deceased can be accepted as 48 in the light of the entry in Ext.A8 electoral identity card. If that is the age of the deceased, the multiplier that is applicable is 13. The Tribunal taken the multiplier 11 instead of 13. Moreover the monthly income of the deceased now fixed by this Court is Rs.7,500/-. Future prospects is to be added to the said amount. Taking the age of the deceased as 48, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. Then the amount will be Rs.1,875/-. (Rs.7,500x25/100). Then the monthly income will be Rs.9,375/-(Rs.7,500+1,875). Then the dependency compensation is to be reassessed in the following ## M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 7 manner: Rs.9,375x12x13x3/4= Rs.10,96,875/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,69,250/- which is to be deducted from the above amount. Then the balance amount will be Rs.5,27,625/(Rs.10,96,875- Rs.5,69,250). 6. Even though, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses which is slightly in excess in the light of the principle laid by the Apex Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)** . Therefore, no interference is necessary for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and also for loss of estate. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the wife, two children and parents of the deceased. They are entitled loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (2018 (18) SCC 130).** There is some force in the M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 8 above argument. The petitioners are entitled compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Then the amount will be Rs.2,00,000/-. (Rs.40,000x5). The Tribunal already awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.10,00/- towards loss of love and affection. That amount is to be deducted. Then the balance amount will be Rs.90,000/- (Rs.2,00,000Rs.1,10,000). Therefore, the enhanced amount entitled by the petitioners can be summarised like this: - 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 5,27,625/2. Loss of consortium Rs.90,000/-----------Total Rs.6,17,625/-. **=======** 7. The petitioners are entitled interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till realisation. The counsel for the insurance company submitted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 259 days and as per order dated 15.10.2020, in this appeal, the petitioners are not entitled interest for a period of 259 days. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled interest for the enhanced amount for a period of 259 days. M.A.C.A.No.1957 /2014 9 Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified. The appellants/petitioners are entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,17,625/- (Rupees Six lakh Seventeen Thousand Six hundred and twenty five only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of application till realisation. The petitioners are not entitled interest for a period of 259 days for the enhanced compensation. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-+