High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-03-16Partly allowed; modified the award and reduced ...

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyamala C.P. and others

Case / Petition Number:M.A.C.A.No. 2785 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
A. M. Babu
Judgment Date: 2017-03-16
Court Decision / Holding: M.A.C.A is partly allowed. No cost. The award is modified to Rs.10,72,000, with the insurer directed to pay within one month from receipt of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; modified the award and reduced certain heads of damages; insurer to pay Rs.10,72,000 within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Respondents

Shyamala C.P.
P.K. Balakrishnan
Prasanth C.P.
Prajeesh C.P.
Suresh Babu K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Lal George

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Sinu.G.Nath
• Sri. A. Kevin Thomas
• Sri. Zubair Pulikkoool
• Sri. K. Lal Mohan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Motor Accidents Claims Appeal questions the adequacy and methodology of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thaliparamba, in O.P.(M.V) No.58/2016, arising from a 14 January 2010 accident that killed a 26-year-old motorcyclist. The Tribunal had computed total compensation at Rs.12,47,000, with Rs.9,18,000 earmarked for loss of dependency based on a notional monthly income of Rs.4,000, plus 50% for future prospects and a 25% deduction for personal expenses, highlighting Sarla Verma principles. It also allowed Rs.1,00,000 for loss of consortium (despite the deceased being a bachelor), and made other heads: medical/funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of estate, and love and affection. The insurer contends the Tribunal failed to apply consistent legal parameters and, despite not relying on Ext. A13 for income, should have considered a higher notional income (Rs.6,000) with modified future prospects and personal expense deductions. The High Court agrees that Sarla Verma should guide future prospects and personal expense deductions, resulting in Rs.9.18 lakhs for dependency, matching the Tribunal’s figure. However, it partially allows the appeal by deleting loss of consortium, adding Rs.15,000 for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000 for loss of estate, and reducing love and affection to Rs.1 lakh, bringing total to Rs.10,72,000. The appeal is partly allowed, with no costs, and the insurer must pay within one month.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma principle on future prospects (50%) and personal expense deduction (50%)
Multiplier method based on age for loss of dependency
Loss of consortium not payable to a bachelor (as per caselaw)
Notional income methodology in MACT cases (notional income vs. actual evidence)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant insurer contends that the Tribunal misapplied legal parameters, notably by allowing a notional income of Rs.4,000 with 50% addition for future prospects and only a 25% deduction for personal expenses, whereas the deceased was a bachelor and the deduction should be 50%. It further argues that, had proper income and deductions been applied, the loss of dependency would be Rs.9.18 lakhs, which narrowly matches the Tribunal’s figure but that other heads (loss of consortium, love and affection, loss of estate, pain and suffering) require recalibration. The insurer seeks to reduce overcompensation by adjusting heads and applying caselaw (Sarla Verma) to future prospects and personal expenses, culminating in a revised total of Rs.10.72 lakhs along with appropriate adjustments and no costs to be awarded to the claimants.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel argues that the Tribunal’s determination was reasonable and in consonance with established guidelines on compensation under MACT. They emphasize upholding the award’s core, including the loss of dependency, while not contesting the general approach of calculating damages. They acknowledge the need for judicial calibration but advocate maintaining a fair, comprehensive compensation package to address the family’s loss, subject to any permissible reductions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Used to apply 50% addition for future prospects and 50% deduction for personal expenses for a bachelor, affecting the loss of dependency calculation.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	2013 (3) KLT 89	Positive	Cited to justify reduction of compensation for loss of love and affection to Rs. 1 lakh in the relevant context.
Jyni and Others Vs. Raphel P.T. and Others	2016 (2) KHC 870	Positive	Cited alongside Rajesh to support the Rs. 1 lakh cap on loss of love and affection in similar fact patterns.

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 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyamala C.P. and others 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.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** ## **THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938** ## **M.A.C.A.No. 2785 of 2016 ()** **-------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V) NO.58/2016 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALIPARAMBA, DATED 12-02-2016** ## **APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P.(M.V) NO.58/2016:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., FIRST FLOOR, PERUMAL BUILDING, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER(S)/1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.(M.V) :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHYAMALA C.P., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMMANCHERY PUTHIYA VEEDU, URUKUNDE, ERAMAM, P.O.MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 306.** **2. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KANNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 58 YEARS, PERIYADAN HOUSE, URUKUNDE, ERAMAM, P.O.MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 306.** **3. PRASANTH C.P., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMMANCHERY PUTHIYA VEEDU, URUKUNDE, ERAMAM, P.O.MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 306.** **4. PRAJEESH C.P., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMMANCHERY PUTHIYA VEEDU, URUKUNDE, ERAMAM, P.O.MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 306.** **5. SURESH BABU K., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN K., KARIPRATH HOUSE, ALAPPADAMBA, P.O.ETTUKUDUKKA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 521.** **R1-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.SINU.G.NATH** **SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS** **R5 BY ADVS. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.K.LAL MOHAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bb** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &** ## **A.M.BABU, JJ.** ## **==============================** ## **M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016** ## **============================== Dated this, the 16[th] day of March, 2017.** ## **J U D G M E N T** P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. Correctness and sustainability of the Award passed by the Tribunal in granting allegedly exorbitant amount towards loss of dependency in a death case, also granting 'loss of consortium' in respect of a bachelor, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal preferred by the Insurer. 2. On 14.01.2010, the deceased, aged 26 years, who was riding a Motor Cycle bearing No.KL-13-H-8895, while so, by about 9.15 a.m., he was knocked down by a Mini Lorry bearing No.KL-10-L-3004 owned and driven by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent, causing fatal injuries leading to his death. This led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal by the parents and siblings of the deceased, claiming a total M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 2 : compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Despite the completion of service of notice and appearance made by the first respondent, the owner cum driver, no written statement was filed from his side. 4. The claim was resisted only by the Insurance Company. PW1 was examined from the part of the claimants and Annexures A1 to A13 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. Based on the available materials on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, that is the first respondent. 5. The case put forth before the Tribunal was that the deceased was engaged as a Manager of a Private firm, drawing a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. In support of this, Exts.A9 to A12 were produced with regard to the academic qualification, which includes a certificate issued by the Model Polytechnic College. Appointment letter issued by the Employer/private firm was produced as Ext.A13, which is dated 14.12.2009 (having close proximity to the date of accident). It was presumably in M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 3 : the said circumstance, that much weight was not given by the Tribunal to the said certificates and the notional income was fixed as Rs.4,000/- to work out the loss of dependency. 6. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as given in the table forming part of paragraph 13 of the Award are in the following terms: |Sl. No|Head of claim|Amount Claimed (Rs.)|Amount Awarded (Rs.)|Basis-vital details in a nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|-------||| |2|Partial loss of earning|-------||| |3|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|3,000/-|| |4|Extra nourishment|1,000/-|--------|| |5|Damage to Clothing and articles|2,000/-|1,000/-|| |6|Medical/Funeral expenses|20,000/-|25,000/-|| |7|Loss of estate|||| |8|Loss of dependency|10,00,000/-|9,18,000/-|(Rs.54,000 *17)| |9|Pain and sufferings|50,000/-|---------|| |10|Loss of consortium||1,00,000/-|| |11|Compensation for loss of love and affection|5,00,000/-|2,00,000/-|| M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 4 : |Sl. No|Head of claim|Amount Claimed (Rs.)|Amount Awarded (Rs.)|Basis-vital details in a nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| ||**T O T A L**|**15,78,000/-** **Limited to** **10,00,000/-**|**12,47,000/-**|| The contention of the appellant Insurance Company is that, amounts have been awarded by the Tribunal left and right, without any regard to the parameters prescribed under law and the precedents; which hence is under challenge. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 as well. 8. The main contention put forward by the appellant Insurance Company is that, the Tribunal, after reckoning the notional income as Rs.4,000/- has added 50% towards future prospects and has reduced only '¼' towards the personal expenses; which ought to have been '50%'; the deceased, being a bachelor. This being the position, the total compensation of Rs.9.18 lakhs requires to be brought down, as there is no change in the multiplier taken as '17' based on the age of the deceased. M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 5 : Prima facie, the said contention appears to be correct in terms of the legal principles. The question is, whether this will tilt the balance in any manner, if the fixation of the notional monthly income by the Tribunal is not correct and on the lower side. 9. It is true that the certificate of appointment produced from the part of the claimants was dated 14.12.2009, which was just one month prior to the date of accident. As such, the Tribunal is justified in not relying on the same, for fixation of income. At the same time, it is to be noted that the accident was of the year 2010. Considering the economic conditions prevailing on the date of accident, even if the deceased was deemed as a person who was having no permanent employment in any establishment, but was working as manual labourer, the income would be reckoned as Rs.6,000/- per month. This is more so, in the instant case, as some attempts were made from the part of the claimants to prove his technical qualifications and also the appointment in a private establishment. By virtue of law declared by the M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 6 : Apex Court in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** , 50% has to be added towards future prospects and since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has been deducted towards probable personal expenses to fix the contribution to the family. On doing such exercise, it becomes Rs.6,000+3,000=9000 and on reducing 50%, the reckonable extent comes to Rs.4,500/-. The loss of dependency which ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal comes to 4,500x12x17= **9.18 lakhs** ; which is exactly equal to the amount (9.18 lakhs) awarded by the Tribunal, after reducing ¼ alone towards the personal expenses. This being the position, we do not find it necessary to make any change or alteration with regard to the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 10. Coming to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other relevant heads, it is seen that, a sum of Rs.1 lakh has been awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of Consortium'. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor and there could not have been any instance of paying loss M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 7 : of consortium, for absence of any spouse. As such, the said amount is liable to be deleted from the amount ordered to be paid. At the same time, we find that no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Though the death had occurred on the same day, excruciating pain would have been suffered by the deceased before bidding farewell to this world. We find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. Similarly, no amount has been awarded towards 'loss of estate'. A notional sum of Rs.10,000/- is payable under this head as well. Thus, adding these two amounts, it comes to Rs.25,000/-; which can be set off against the excess amount of Rs.1 lakh awarded towards 'loss of consortium'. As such, the amount actually to be deducted comes reduced to Rs. **75,000/-** . 11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.'2 lakhs' towards loss of love and affection. By virtue of law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [2013 (3) KLT 89]** , and also by this Court in **Jyni and Others Vs. Raphel P.T. and** M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2016 : 8 : **Others [2016 (2) KHC 870]** , it is only Rs.1 lakh. Hence, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is also to be deducted. Thus, the total compensation payable under all the relevant heads comes only to Rs. **10,72,000/-** (12,47,0001,75,000). The award stands modified to the said extent. The due amount shall be satisfied by the appellant Insurance Company at the earliest, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.A.C.A. is partly allowed. No cost. Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** Bb/20/03/2017 Sd/- **A.M.BABU, JUDGE** _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_