High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-16Appeal allowed; the MACT award is enhanced and ...

P. George, Ajith George and Ajitha George v. Sainulabdeen, Unnikrishnan S. Sreedharan Nair and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziayad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2024-02-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The appellate court enhanced the compensation by Rs.4,75,200, calculated after applying 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi, 2017) and a 50% deduction for personal expenses for a 28-year-old bachelor, with Rs.4,500 monthly income (per Ramachandrappa). Funeral and loss of estate heads were increased to Rs.15,000 each, and loss of consortium for the parents was adjusted to Rs.70,000 (offsetting Rs.10,000 already awarded and Rs.10,000 for love and affection). The total additional amount is Rs.4,75,200. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition until realization within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment; delay of 229 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the enhanced amount, with the caveat that no interest accrues for that period for the extra amount. PAN/Aadhaar and bank details must be furnished within two months, failing which the insurer may deposit before the Tribunal.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; the MACT award is enhanced and modified as described above; deposit of the enhanced amount with interest; delay condoned with caveat on interest for the delay period; PAN/Aadhaar and bank details to be furnished within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. George
Ajith George
Ajitha George

Respondents

Sainulabdeen
Unnikrishnan S. Sreedharan Nair
United India Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.T. Shyamkumar
• Harish R. Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• P.K. Manojkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No.1745 of 2013) arising from an award dated 23.08.2012 in O.P.(M.V.) No.2228/2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants, as legal heirs of the deceased Anith George (age 28), challenged the Tribunal’s finding of negligence attributed to the driver of lorry KL 06/3537, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,84,900 with 9% interest, holding the insurer liable and directing deposit of the amount. The appellants argued for enhancement on several heads, contending the deceased’s income was higher, future prospects should be added, and losses including funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium merited appropriate compensation. The court criticised the income assessment, noting lack of evidence for Rs.8,000/month and applying Ramachandrappa to accept Rs.4,500/month as a baseline for 2004. It also applied Pranay Sethi (2017) to add 40% future prospects and to deduct 50% for personal expenses. After recalculations, it awarded an additional Rs.4,75,200 and ordered deposit with 8% interest, while condoning 229 days of delay for the appeal with a caveat on interest for the delay period. The decision modifies the MACT award and allows the appeal in part.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting a meagre monthly income of Rs.3,000 and failed to consider credible evidence suggesting higher earnings. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram, they urged adoption of Rs.4,500 per month as the baseline income for 2004. They urged 40% addition for future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and a 50% deduction for personal expenses, yielding a higher dependency figure (Rs.6,42,600). They pressed for enhanced compensation across heads, including funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, and argued that loss of love and affection could be offset against consortium where applicable. They also sought interest on the enhanced amount and mandated furnishance of PAN/Aadhaar and bank details to facilitate deposit.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that there was insufficient evidence of the claimed salary and that liability should be restricted to the award already made by the MACT. They argued that the trial court’s quantum was reasonable in view of the lack of concrete evidence of the deceased’s income and urged no enhancement beyond statutory guidelines. They contested the computation of future prospects and questioned the basis for assuming higher earnings without corroborative proof. They urged maintaining the insured’s liability and resisting any elevated compensation pending proper evidence.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to adopt Rs.4,500 per month as baseline income for 2004 where evidence of salary was lacking.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Applied 40% addition for future prospects and 50% deduction for personal expenses to compute enhanced dependency.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram	(2018) 18 SCC 130	Positive	Cited for loss of consortium/compensation adjustments in related context.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur	[2020] 3 KHC 760	Positive	Supported the principle that loss of love and affection need not be separately awarded where loss of consortium is compensated; informed adjustments.

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 P. George, Ajith George and Ajitha George v. Sainulabdeen, Unnikrishnan S. Sreedharan Nair and 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.08.2012 IN OP(MV) 2228/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/APPLICANTS 1, 3 AND 4:`** ``` 1P. GEORGE S/O. J. PETER, AGED 68 YEARS, T.C 16/1503(2), LIGHT HOUSE, JPN - 29, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` 2AJITH GEORGE S/O. P. GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS, T.C 16/1503(2), LIGHT HOUSE, JPN - 29, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` 3AJITHA GEORGE D/O. P. GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS, T.C 16/1503(2), LIGHT HOUSE, JPN - 29, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (THE 2ND APPLICANT DIED ON 21/01/2003 AND HER LEGAL HERIS ARE THE APPELLANTS HEREIN WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY) ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SAINULABDEEN T.C. 20/1207, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695002 ``` - `2 UNNIKRISHNAN S. S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, KATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU PATHIRAPALLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695003` - `3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED XAVIER BUILDING, IIND FLOOR, P W D ROAD, P.B. NO. 50, NAGARCOIL, TAMILNADU, PIN 622201` ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BY ADV P.K.MANOJKUMAR ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The appellants herein were the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 in O.P. (M.V.) No.2228/2004 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The said claim petition was filed by them along with the 2nd petitioner in the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of one Anith George due to the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 23.02.2004. The deceased was the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd and 4th petitioners. 2. The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, was hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.KL 06/3537. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the said lorry at the relevant time. The vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. According to the appellants, the deceased was a Marketing Executive with a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. His age was 28 years at the time of accident. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 3[rd] respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage for the vehicle. However, they denied the ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 4 ``` negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and according to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A12 from the side of the appellants and no evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,84,900/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation. By the time the appeal is filed the 2nd petitioner died and the appellants herein are the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd petitioner. 5. Heard Sri.K.T. Shyamkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.P.K. Manojkumar, learned ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 5 ``` counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement of compensation is required or not. On perusal of the records, I find that under certain heads the amounts awarded by the Tribunal were not adequate. The first head to be considered is the compensation for dependency. For assessing the said compensation the Tribunal accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. On carefully going through the materials, I find that the said monthly income taken is not sufficient, particularly in view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004. Of course, it is true that, even though the appellants claimed that the deceased was working as a Marketing Executive with a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- absolutely no evidence was adduced, either to establish the employment or the salary he used to receive from the same. In the absence of any such evidence, the assessment has to be made by adopting other methods available. In this regard, it is to be noted that in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the Honourable Supreme ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 6 ``` Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. Therefore, the said monthly income can be accepted in this case also in the absence of any evidence. 7. The Tribunal did not take into consideration future prospects while assessing the compensation. In the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** 40% of the income ought to have been added as the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. Since he died as a bachelor, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 50%. Accordingly, when reassessing the compensation with the above criteria, the compensation for loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,42,600/- [(4,500 + 40%) x 12 x17 x ½]. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,57,400/- and thus, the additional compensation comes to Rs.3,85,200/-. 8. When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- each toward funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas the amounts payable under these heads were Rs.15,000/- each in the light of **Pranay Sethi** ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 7 ``` **(supra)** . Therefore, amounts of Rs.10,000/- each are awarded under both the said heads. 9. The next head which requires consideration is the loss of consortium. In the light of **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd.** **v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur** **and other [ 2020 (3) KHC 760]** the petitioners 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, were entitled for compensation @ Rs.40,000/- each. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/under the head of loss of love and affection. In **Satinder Kaur (supra)** it was categorically held that when compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, no further amount needs to be granted for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection can be adjusted against the compensation determined under the head of loss of consortium. Accordingly, the additional compensation under the head of loss of consortium is determined as Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.4,75,200/- (3,85,200 + 10,000 + 10,000 + ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 8 ``` 70,000). In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(M.V.) No.2228/2004 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.4,75,200/(Rupees four lakh seventy-five thousand and two hundred only) which shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that, as the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the said period for the additional amount, the 3rd respondent shall be at liberty to exclude the period of delay, while computing the interest on the additional compensation. It is further clarified that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN card, Aadhar Card and bank details to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, they fail to ``` MACA NO. 1745 OF 2013 ``` ``` 9 ``` furnish the said details, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs