Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal disposed of as above.

NANGELI v. PRAMODKUMAR & ORS (on the awards in MACA No. 2003 of 2011)

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2003 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
  • B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date
2017-11-28
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is partly allowed. The Court re-fixes the deceased’s income at Rs. 7,000 per month and uses a 17-year multiplier, resulting in a dependency award of Rs. 9,52,000. It grants an additional amount of Rs. 6,93,500 as compensation over the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 3,80,500, following Pranay Sethi guidelines for funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and love/affection head, along with clothing. The insurer is directed to deposit the total amount with interest at 8% per annum before the Tribunal within two months. The distribution of the additional amount among appellants is fixed in the ratio 10:30:60, with the minor’s share to be deposited in a Nationalised bank as Fixed Deposit till majority. The award is to be released to the appellants after deducting court fees."
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Nangeli
  • Ramya
  • V. Sneha (minor)

Respondents

  • Pramodkumar
  • Abdulla
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. K. Vidyasagar
  • • Sri. K. M. Mohammed Abdurahiman

Counsels for Respondents

  • • M. A. George
  • • Sri. M. A. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from a Tribunal award of Rs. 3,80,500 for the death of Sureshbabu in a road accident on 27-04-2005, when an autorickshaw was struck by a bus (KL-10M 8692) driven rashly. The appellants (mother, wife and minor daughter of the deceased) challenge the quantum of compensation and demand higher dependency and other heads. The High Court finds that the deceased was a carpenter earning Rs. 7,000 per month and that the Tribunal erred in applying a notional income of Rs. 2,500 and in using an incorrect multiplier of 18. It applies the evidence of PW1 supporting the 7,000 monthly income and recalculates the dependency using a 17 multiplier (for age 30). It holds that 1/3 of income is for personal expenses, and fixes dependency at Rs. 9,52,000. Following the Apex Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines, the court awards substantial additional sums for funeral expenses (Rs. 13,000), pain and suffering (Rs. 10,000), loss of estate (Rs. 12,500), loss of consortium (Rs. 35,000 to the wife), love and affection (Rs. 30,000 to the minor daughter and Rs. 10,000 to the mother), and clothing (Rs. 1,000). The total additional compensation becomes Rs. 6,93,500, with 8% interest from petition date. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount with interest within two months. The distribution of the additional award among appellants is fixed (10:30:60), with the minor’s share deposited in fixed deposit until majority. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased was a carpenter earning Rs. 7,000 per month and that the Tribunal wrongly fixed the income at Rs. 2,500 and used an incorrect multiplier. PW-1 (the wife) testified to the deceased’s carpentry work and earnings, which should be accepted. The court should grant higher dependency compensation by fixing income at Rs. 7,000 and applying a proper multiplier (17) given the deceased’s age (30). The Tribunal’s awards for funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of estate, and loss of consortium should be revisited in light of Pranay Sethi; the family also seeks fair compensation for love and affection and costs. The court is urged to enhance compensation accordingly and to ensure deposit of the award by the insurer with appropriate interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel participated in the hearing but the excerpt does not provide a detailed account of their submissions. Their stance is not elaborated in the provided text beyond contesting the quantum through legal arguments typical of insurer/owner respondents; the court’s decision indicates that the evidence and statutory guidelines were applied to determine appropriate compensation, despite the lack of explicit respondents’ argument details in this excerpt.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[2007(4) KLT 662 (SC)]PositiveThe judgment explicitly relies on the Pranay Sethi guidelines for awarding funeral expenses and other heads of compensation; the decision is applied to determine the appropriate amounts.

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 NANGELI v. PRAMODKUMAR & ORS (on the awards in MACA No. 2003 of 2011) 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.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 MACA.No. 2003 of 2011 ( ) -------------------------OPMV 933/2005 of M.A.C.T., MANJERI ## APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. NANGELI, AGED 60 YEARS M/O. SURESHBABU (LATE), S/O. NARAYANAN (LATE) 2. RAMYA, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. SURESHBABU (LATE) 3. V.SNEHA (MINOR), AGED 5 YEARS D/O. SURESHBABU (LATE), REP.BY NEXT GUARDIAN MOTHER RAMYA, 2ND PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT ELANKOOTIL HOUSE, P.O.AMARAMBALAM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT). BY ADVS.SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.K.M.MOHAMED ABDURAHIMAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAMODKUMAR, S/O. RAMAN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, - P.O.THACHINGANADAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322. 2. ABDULLA, S/O. SAIDALI, PONPARA HOUSE, P.O.THACHINGANADAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SHRIRAM SITE OFFICE 2A, PRAKASA ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 001. R,R3(B/O) BY ADV. M A GEORGE R BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: # **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28[th] day of November 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## **B Sudheendrakumar J.,** The mother, wife and minor daughter of deceased Sureshbabu have filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On 27.4.2005 at about 2.10 p.m., while the deceased Sureshbabu was travelling in an autorikshaw along the public road, a bus bearing Reg.No. KL-10M 8692 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the said autorikshaw and as a consequence, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 2 the way to the hospital. 2. In connection with the death of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,80,500/- as compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. The appellants contended that the deceased was a carpenter earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. She stated that the deceased was a carpenter by profession earning Rs.7,000/per month. However, in the absence of any document to prove the income, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-. We find there is uncontroverted evidence of PW1 that the deceased was a M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 3 carpenter during the relevant period. The accident was on 27.4.2005. In view of the evidence of PW1 that the deceased was a carpenter during the relevant period, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month from his profession as a carpenter. There are three dependents in the claim petition. Therefore, 1/3[rd] of the income has to be deducted for the purpose of living and personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was aged 30 years during the relevant period. Therefore, the multiplier to be used for the purpose of calculating dependency compensation is '17'. However, the Tribunal incorrectly identified the multiplier as '18'. Since we have re-fixed the monthly income and the multiplier, we grant an amount of Rs.9,52,000/- M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 4 (7000x12x17x2/3) as dependency compensation as against the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. Thus, we grant an amount of Rs.5,92,000/as additional amount towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2007(4) KLT 662 (SC)], we are granting an amount of Rs.13,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. Therefore, we are granting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering as against the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said count. Towards loss of estate, we are granting an amount of M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 5 Rs.12,500/- as the Tribunal granted only Rs.2,500/- under the said count. The 2[nd] appellant is the wife of the deceased, who was aged 22 years during the relevant period. Therefore, towards loss of consortium, we are granting an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- to the 2[nd] appellant, as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- under the said count. The claimants include the mother aged 55 years and the minor daughter aged 4 months of the deceased. Therefore, we are granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the minor daughter and Rs.10,000/- to the mother of the deceased as compensation towards love and affection. Thus, we grant an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- under the said count as the Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- under the said count. On the facts and M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 6 circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the clothes worn by the deceased might have been torn and damaged and in the said circumstances, we are granting an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards damage to clothings, as no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. Thus, we grant an amount of Rs.6,93,500/(Rupees six lakh ninety three thousand five hundred only) as additional compensation. The above amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, except for the period of delay, which comes to 669 days. The third respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest before the tribunal, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 7 judgment. Out of the additional amount awarded by this court, an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the first appellant and Rs.30,000/- shall be given to the third appellant. The balance amount of additional compensation along with interest shall be apportioned among the appellant Nos.1 to 3 in the ratio of 10:30:60. The amount allotted to the third respondent-minor along with interest thereon, shall be deposited in a Nationalised bank as Fixed Deposit till the minor attains the age of majority. The amount shall be released to the appellants only after deducting the balance court fee. In the result, this appeal stands disposed of as above. M.A.C.A. No.2003 of 2011 8 ## **Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** **Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/28.11.2017_ _// True Copy //_ _PA to Judge_