High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2015-09-01Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; no costs.

N.P. Mammootty and Others v. Natarajan, Mallika Devi and M/s New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 2237 of 2011

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T. R. Ramachandran Nair
K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2015-09-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; enhanced total compensation fixed at Rs.14,61,000 with 9% interest from the date of the petition till realisation; deposit of the enhanced amount with interest, less any amount already deposited, within three months; 30% of the enhanced amount to be shared by the parents and 40% to be shared equally by the other claimants; no costs in the appeal.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

N.P. Mammootty S/o Late Abu
K.E.N. Ramla
K.E.N. Shamsheela
K.E.N. Nousheer
K.E.N. Shabeer
K.E.N. Shihaj

Respondents

Natarajan
Mallika Devi
M/S New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.K. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

• Ziyad Rahman
• A.A. Ziyad Rahman

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA concerns an appeal by the parents and siblings of Shamseer, who died in a motor vehicle accident near Varapuzha, Ernakulam on 13-3-2004. The claimants challenged an award under the Motor Vehicles Act by the Addl. MACT Thalassery, alleging inadequacy of compensation. The Tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at a nominal level and used the parents’ average age to fix the multiplier. The appellants pressed Ext. A5, a certificate from the Embassy of India in Muscat showing the deceased earning RO 150 per month in Oman, which the Tribunal rejected; they urged application of the Sarla Varma framework, asserting the income should be Rs 17,700 per month. The Court found Ext. A5 credible and adopted it, while noting the absence of clear evidence on permanent employment or furnished accommodation, and accordingly reduced the income to Rs 6,000 per month for dependency calculations. Following Sarla Varma’s principle that the multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased, and relying on Annamkutty, the Court fixed the multiplier at 18, not the dependants’ ages. Funeral expenses were increased to Rs 15,000 and loss of love and affection to Rs 1,00,000. Total compensation was recalculated at Rs 14,61,000 with 9% interest, to be deposited within three months. The appeal is allowed; there is no order as to costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation – multiplier and deduction for personal expenses under the Sarla Varma framework
Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. – age of deceased should determine multiplier
Manissery Mariyumma v. A. Govinda & Ors. – cited in argument; followed by Sarla Varma/Annamkutty approach

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in not accepting Ext. A5, a document certified by the Embassy of India in Muscat showing the deceased’s salary of RO 150 per month, and in applying a notional income of Rs. 3,000. They argue that the Sarla Varma framework should be used to compute compensation, with the age of the deceased guiding the multiplier, and that the Tribunal's use of the parents’ average age is improper. They seek higher amounts for loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, and appropriate deductions for personal expenses and accommodation. The deceased’s income and the proper multiplier should yield a larger compensation based on the evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends that Ext. A5 is admissible but urges adherence to the Tribunal’s findings, with reductions for personal expenses if higher income is accepted, and questions about the permanence of employment. They argue the income and multiplier should remain as determined by the Tribunal, with a cautious calculation of compensation heads while considering appropriate deductions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802	Positive	Used to support the proposition that the age of the deceased, not dependants' average age, should determine the multiplier.
Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.	2013 (4) KLT 160	Positive	Held that the age of the deceased should be taken into consideration for multiplier; followed in the present case.
Manissery Mariyumma v. A. Govinda & Ors.	2013 (3) KHC 479	Mentioned Only	Cited in argument; not relied upon for final reasoning as the court preferred Annamkutty/Sarla Varma approach.

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 N.P. Mammootty and Others v. Natarajan, Mallika Devi and M/s New India Insurance Company 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** ## **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/10TH BHADRA, 1937** **MACA.No. 2237 of 2011 () -------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1359/2004 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,THALASSERY DATED 23-12-2010 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. N.P.MAMMOOTTY S/O.LATE ABU, RAMLA COTTAGE, ANJARAKANDY AMSOM KOLATHUMALA DESOM, P.O.ANJARAKANDY, THALASSERY KANNUR.** **2. K.E.N.RAMLA, AGED 45 YEARS M/O.LATE SHAMSHEER & W/O.N.P.MAMMOOTTY RAMLA COTTAGE, ANJARAKANDY AMSOM, KOLATHUMALA DESOM P.O.ANJARAKANDY, THALASSERY, KANNUR.** **3. K.E.N.SHAMSHEELA AGED 32 YEARS D/O.MAMMOOTTY, RAMLA COTTAGE, ANJARAKANDY AMSOM KOLATHUMALA DESOM, P.O.ANJARAKANDY, THALASSERY KANNUR.** **4. K.E.N.NOUSHEER, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.MAMMOOTTY, STUDENT, RAMLA COTTAGE ANJARAKANDY AMSOM, KOLATHUMALA DESOM, P.O.ANJARAKANDY THALASSERY, KANNUR.** **5. K.E.N.SHABEER, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.MAMMOOTTY, STUDENT, RAMLA COTTAGE ANJARAKANDY AMSOM, KOLATHUMALA DESOM, P.O.ANJARAKANDY THALASSERY, KANNUR.** **6. K.E.N.SHIHAJ, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.MAMMOOTTY, STUDENT, RAMLA COTTAGE ANJARAKANDY AMSOM, KOLATHUMALA DESOM, P.O.ANJARAKANDY THALASSERY, KANNUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH** ## **MACA.No. 2237 of 2011 ()** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. NATARAJAN** **S/O.MARASWAMY, 4/61, PASUR ANOOR MUTHALYAR COLONY, AVANTHADHI DESOM, P.O.PASUR ANOOR (VIA) COIMBATORE-641653 TAMILNADU (DRIVER OF LORRY TN 39 F 9039)** ## **2. MALLIKA DEVI** **2/130, SEGATHURAI, PALLADAM KADAMBADI.P.O., COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU PIN-641 105. (OWNER OF THE LORRY TN 39 F 9039)** ## **3. M/S.NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,** **11, 19, 20 GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE ROAD COIMBATORE-641 018, TAMIL NADU (INSURER).** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN(B/O) R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **SHG/** ## **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of September, 2015** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Ramachandran Nair, J.** This appeal is filed by the parents and brothers and sisters of the deceased Shamseer who died in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioners are aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted. 2. The accident occurred on 13.3.2004 at Varapuzha in Ernakulam District. Along with certain others he was travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL-13/K 7580 and the offending vehicle is a lorry bearing registration No.TN39/F 9039. Apart from the deceased another occupant also suffered injuries and two claim applications were filed which were jointly tried. 3. The main grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is the one regarding the fixation of monthly income. It is also submitted that the adoption of multiplier is not in tune with the judgment in **Sarla Varma** M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011 **-2-** ## **v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802** **(SC)** . It was claimed that he was working as a Salesman in a company in Sultanate of Oman and he was earning monthly salary of RO.150.000 (Rials Omani One hundred fifty only). Ext.A5 is the document produced in support of the above. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon various judgments to contend for the position that the document certified by the Embassy is acceptable in evidence. We find force in the said submission also. In Ext.A5 it is certified that the deceased was holding Indian Passport B-1725719 and is working with the concern namely ABO Najat Trading in the capacity of Food Supply Salesman/General and he is drawing a monthly salary of RO150.000. 4. The Tribunal did not accept the document even though the same is attested by the concerned officials of the Embassy of India, Muscat. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the said approach was not correct. The Tribunal has taken M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011 **-3-** the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- as a notional income. He was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. 6. We find from Ext.A5 that it has been attested by the Embassy of India, Muscat by a competent authority. The same is therefore acceptable and it will be safe to rely upon the same document. Going by the conversion of Oman RO for the relevant period it was equal to Indian Rs.118.42. Hence the monthly salary which was being earned by him will come to Rs.17,700/-. But as regards the permanent nature of the employment there is no evidence. Therefore nothing could be added towards it for the future prospects of the deceased. Going by the visa issued as seen from the entry in the passport he obtained visa on 29.10.2003 which was to expire on 28.10.2005. Whether the employment was eligible to be renewed also is not clear as there is no evidence on this aspect. Apart from the same as regards the expenditure towards his food, accommodation etc. we will have to reduce a certain percentage. Going by the judgment in Sarla Varma's case (cited supra) as he was a M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011 **-4-** bachelor 50% will have to be reduced from Rs.17,700/towards personal expenses also. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in view of the fact that other expenses will also be there like the one pointed out earlier, if at all this court adopts the monthly income as disclosed in Ext.A5 a further reduction is required to balance various aspects. We find force in the same. As no evidence is available whether he was having a free accommodation and food was also being provided by the employer, we will be justified in reducing a reasonable amount further from the amount arrived at. Therefore we fix Rs.6,000/- as the monthly remittance he would have been contributing to the appellants. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also not correct as the Tribunal has gone by the average age of the parents. In the judgment in Sarla Varma's case (cited supra) it has been held that age of the deceased will have to be reckoned for fixing the multiplier. Even though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011 **-5-** the average age of the parents will have to be reckoned we cannot agree. A Division Bench of this court in **Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.** **[2013 (4) KLT 160]** held that the age of the deceased that should be taken into consideration and not that of the dependants. Even though the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in **Manissery Mariyumma & Ors. v. A. Govinda & Ors. [2013 (3) KHC 479]** it was on a review petition filed by the parties and in the light of the judgment in **Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2013 (4) KLT 160]** and the judgment in Sarla Varma's case (cited supra) we prefer to follow the same. Therefore the multiplier as far as this case will be 18. 8. For loss of love and affection Rs.10,000- has been granted by the Tribunal and for funeral expenses what is granted by the Tribunal is only Rs.4,000/-. The appellant will be entitled for a higher amount on these items. We fix an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, since the M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011 **-6-** appellants, including the parents have lost their son at the young age and brothers and sisters have lost the love and care of their deceased brother. Therefore, we re-fix the compensation in the following manner: |**Head of claim**|**Amount re-fixed in Rs.**| |---|---| |Loss of dependency|6000x12x18<br>1296000| |Pain and suffering|10000| |Loss of love and affection|100000| |Transportation|5000| |Loss of estate|35000| |Funeral expenses|15000| |**Total**|**14,61,000**<br>**(Rupees Fourteen**<br>**lakhs sixty one**<br>**thousand only)**| The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. There will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation with interest, less the amount already deposited, before the Tribunal within a period of three months. On such deposit being made, the M.A.C.A.No.2237 of 2011 **-7-** appellants will be entitled for the release of the amount. 30% of the enhanced compensation with interest thereon will be shared by the parents and the remaining 40% with interest thereon will be shared equally by the other claimants. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. Sd/- **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE** Sd/- ## **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH** **JUDGE** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/