High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-11-04Appeal dismissed in limini; no interference wit...

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Raveendran, Shimna, Shijina and Padmini

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 1792 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
K. Surendra Mohan
K.M. Joseph
M.C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-11-04
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court held that computation under Section 163A must be made by following the table in Clause 1 of the Second Schedule. It noted that only Rs. 2,000 per month was used, and while it accepted the Lata Wadhwa principle to consider Rs. 3,000 per month, it nonetheless dismissed the appeal in limini, agreeing that the impugned award of Rs. 2,74,000 was not unjust or unreasonable and thus left the award intact.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed in limini; no interference with the impugned award.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The New India Assurance Company Limited, KOZHIKODE represented by its Manager, Regional Office, M.G. Road, Kochi-11

Respondents

RAVEENDRAN S/O CHATHUKUTTY, KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018
SHIMNA D/O RAVEENDRAN, KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018
SHIJINA D/O RAVEENDRAN, KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018
PADMINI W/O KUTTAYI, KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) before the Kerala High Court by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, under Section 163A of the MV Act on the death of Sathyapraba in a motor-vehicle accident on 19 April 2007. The deceased, aged around 42, was travelling in a vehicle when struck by an unidentified vehicle; initially a claim under Section 166 was filed, later amended to Section 163A. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,74,000 out of Rs. 5,00,000 claimed. The insurer argued that quantum under 163A must be strictly computed using Clause 1 of the Second Schedule’s table, not by the multiplier-multiplicand method, and that the monthly income should be Rs. 3,000 rather than Rs. 2,000 (citing Lata Wadhwa to support homemaker income) which would place the deceased in a higher column (and yield a larger amount). They also invoked National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Chacko to oppose the multiplier approach. The respondents contended that the impugned award was just. The High Court agreed that 163A must be computed via the Second Schedule table, but noted the Tribunal fixed Rs. 2,000 as monthly income; applying Lata Wadhwa it suggested Rs. 3,000 could be considered, yet ultimately dismissed the appeal in limini, holding the impugned award was not unjust or unreasonable and left it intact.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Clause 1 of the Second Schedule to the MV ActNote to the table (Second Schedule)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplier-multiplicand method (as contrasted with the Second Schedule table)
Lata Wadhwa principle on homemaker income (Rs. 3,000 per month)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal did not follow Clause 1 of the Second Schedule in ascertaining quantum under Section 163A and incorrectly employed the multiplier-multiplicand method. The deceased’s monthly income was fixed at Rs. 2,000; the insurer argues it should be Rs. 3,000 (citing Lata Wadhwa) and that the deceased, aged 40–45, should fall under a higher vertical column (Rs. 24,000+ per month), yielding a substantially higher compensation. They invoke National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Chacko to resist multiplier-based computation and urge adherence to the Second Schedule table.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s award under the 163A framework was just and that the quantum should stand; they rely on the statutory scheme and the Second Schedule, arguing that the assessment of compensation should not be disturbed except where unlawfully computed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.C.Chacko	2011(3) KHC 438 (DB)	Positive	Court agrees with the dictum that the multiplier-multiplicand method should not be used to compute quantum under Section 163A; relies on the case to support adherence to the Second Schedule table.
Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others	2001 SC 3218	Positive	Court cites to justify considering Rs. 3,000 per month for a homemaker, thereby placing the deceased in a higher column for computation.

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 New India Assurance Company Limited v. Raveendran, Shimna, Shijina and Padmini 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 R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1792 of 2011() ----------------------OPMV.1497/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... ## APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOZHIKODE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN,S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673018. 2. SHIMNA,D/O.RAVEENDRAN,KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018. 3. SHIJINA,D/O.RAVEENDRAN,KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018. 4. PADMINI,W/O.KUTTAYI,KANDAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYANGADI.P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673018. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A.No. 1792 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** Insurance company is the appellant. Claimants are husband aged 55 years, two daughters aged 20 years and 17 years and mother aged 59 years of one Sathyapraba, a woman aged 42 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 19/04/2007 and succumbed to those injuries. The claim was initially staked under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. The deceased was travelling in a vehicle. That was hit by an unidentified vehicle. Wisdom dawned later and claim was staked only under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. Against a total claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,74,000/- as per the details given in paragraph 8 of the impugned award which we extract below: |**_Compensation claimed under different_** **_heads_**|**_Amount claimed (Rs.)_**|**_Amount allowed_** **_(Rs.)_**| |---|---|---| |1. Transport to hospital|2,000/-|1,000/-| |2. Damage to clothing & loss of articles|5,000/-|1,000/-| |3. Funeral expenses|20,000/-|5,000/-| M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 2 |**_Compensation claimed under different_** **_heads_**|**_Amount claimed (Rs.)_**|**_Amount allowed_** **_(Rs.)_**| |---|---|---| |4. Loss of consortium|50,000/-|10,000/-| |5. Loss of estate|Nil|5,000/-| |6. Loss of dependency|2,00,000/-|2,52,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 14 x ¾)| |The other heads as claimed by the petitioner are not allowable. Hence the claim under such heads are not allowed. Total compensation claimed (consolidated compensation) Rs.5,00,000/- Total compensation allowed Rs.2,74,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy four thousand only)||| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that the tribunal did not follow the table given in clause 1 of the second schedule while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable. The tribunal, following the dictum in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.C.Chacko [2011(3) KHC 438** **(DB)]** should certainly not have attempted to ascertain the quantum of compensation by employing the multipliermultiplicand method. Relevant figure must have been M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 3 ascertained directly from the table and not by any independent method of calculation. We are in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though initially a claim was made that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.8,000/- per mensem, while the amendment was carried out, the quantum of monthly income was reduced to Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Thereupon Rs.2,000/- was accepted by the tribunal as the monthly income of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased belongs to the age group of 40-45 years. Therefore, horizontal column No.7 applies to her. As found by the tribunal, she was earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The relevant entry under column No.11 relating to persons earning above Rs.18,000/- up to Rs.24,000/- and for persons falling under the 7[th] horizontal column is Rs.3,36,000/-. After deducting 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses as mandated by the note to the table, the claimants would be entitled only to get an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- (Rs.3,36,000/- x 2/3). In addition, only an amount of Rs.9,500/- will be payable: towards funeral M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 4 expenses (Rs.2,000/-), loss of consortium (Rs.5,000/-) and loss of estate (Rs.2,500/-) as stipulated under clause 3. The total compensation cannot exceed Rs.2,33,500/- at any rate, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that computation of compensation under Section 163A must be made by the tribunal by following the table under clause 1 of the second schedule. But, in this case, we note that only Rs.2,000/- has been reckoned as the monthly income. Going by the decision in **Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218],** even for a non-earning home maker, monthly income can be assumed to be Rs.3,000/- per mensem. It was claimed that the deceased was a self-employed person and a home maker. In these circumstances, we are of the view that Rs.3,000/- can, at any rate, be reckoned as the monthly income. This means that the deceased would rightly fall under vertical column No.12 relating to persons earning income above Rs.24,000/- up to Rs.36,000/-. The actual amount of compensation payable must then be much greater than what has been awarded. We are, in these circumstances, not persuaded M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 5 to admit this appeal as the total quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal does not, at any rate, appear to us to be unjust or unreasonable. It does not appear to us to be in violation of the second schedule to the M.V.Act on the basis of which compensation has to be computed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. 6. In the result, this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limini holding that no interference with the impugned award is necessary at the instance of the appellant. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** ## **(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1792 of 2011 7 ## **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010