High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-31Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

Pauloose and others v. Arun Jose and United India Insurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 396 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date: 2024-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The tribunal’s award of Rs 12,40,350 is supplemented by recalculated heads as guided by Pranay Sethi and Sarla Varma. The court fixes enhanced compensation under loss of economic benefits and dependency at Rs 12,46,050 and adds Rs 1,91,700, totaling Rs 12,46,050 under that head. Funeral expenses are adjusted to Rs 15,000; loss of consortium is increased to Rs 2,00,000; loss of estate increased to Rs 15,000; other heads are left intact with minor adjustments (e.g., transport, medical, etc.). The aggregate payable becomes Rs 15,22,050, with total enhanced compensation of Rs 2,81,700 over the tribunal’s figure, plus interest at 9% from petition date and costs. The insurer must deposit the enhanced amount within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after which disbursement will occur. The insurer is entitled to recover the enhanced amount from the 1st respondent, Arun Jose.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer to deposit within two months; recoveries to be effected from the 1st respondent; final disbursement to appellants per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pauloose, S/o. Mathew
Marriyakkutty, W/o. Pauloose
Lali, W/o. Late Thankachan @ Mathew
Ashly Mathew, D/o. Late Thankachan
Albin Mathew, S/o. Late Thankachan

Respondents

Arun Jose
The Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Nithyananda Building, Main Road, Kanhangad, Kasaragod District 671 315

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Subhash Cyriac
• Smtsheeba Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• P.A. Reziya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, in O.P. (MV) No.529 of 2016, dated 07.11.2017. The appellants, claimants after the death of Thankachan Paul @ Mathew on 31.10.2016, sought compensation of Rs 34.5 lakh (limited to Rs 25 lakh). The accident occurred when a motorcycle (KL-60-D-2965) struck the deceased while he walked along the Chittarickal–Kunnumkai PWD road near Kammadam. The tribunal awarded Rs 12,40,350 with 9% interest from the petition date. The insurer admitted the policy but contested the quantum. No oral evidence was led; Exts A1–A9 were marked for the claimants and Exts B1–B2 for the respondents. The appellants pressed for enhancement across several heads, arguing that Pranay Sethi and Sarla Varma should guide the computation. They contended for higher loss of consortium (five legal heirs vs the tribunal’s Rs 1,00,000), funeral expenses ( Rs 15,000 as per Pranay Sethi rather than Rs 25,000), and loss of estate (Rs 15,000 vs Rs 5,000). They also urged re-calculation of loss of economic benefits using a 13 multiplier (age 50) instead of 11. The court, applying these precedents, recalculated heads, allowing partial enhancement, and awarded an additional Rs 2,81,700 beyond the tribunal’s award, with 9% interest and proportionate costs. The insurer must deposit within two months and recoveries will be effected from the 1st respondent. The appeal is allowed in part.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplier principle based on Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(6)SCC 121)
Loss of consortium doctrine as refined in Pranay Sethi (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the tribunal erred in restricting compensation under heads such as loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and economic dependency. Relying on Sarla Varma and Pranay Sethi, they urge (i) increase in loss of consortium to Rs 2,00,000 (5 legal heirs), (ii) funeral expenses fixed at Rs 15,000 (per Pranay Sethi), (iii) loss of estate at Rs 15,000, (iv) re-calculation of loss of economic benefits using multiplier 13 for a 50-year-old deceased, producing Rs 12,46,050 under that head and an additional Rs 1,91,700, yielding a total of Rs 12,46,050. They seek overall enhanced compensation within the cap of Rs 25 lakh. They seek deposit with interest and costs and that the insurer recover the amount from the 1st respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contest the quantum and argue for adherence to the tribunal’s award where possibilities for enhancement are limited, citing the insurer’s responsibility. They specifically contend funeral expenses be Rs 15,000 (not Rs 25,000), and oppose excessive revisions in other heads. Their counsel emphasizes the tribunal’s findings, the absence of oral evidence, and the policy coverage, urging that the appellate court should not drastically alter the award beyond the established heads and evidence. They press for maintaining the tribunal’s compensation with interest as ordered.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for computation of heads of compensation and the Pranay Sethi framework in motor accident claims.
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2009(6)SCC 121	Positive	Applied to justify use of a higher multiplier (13) based on age, as refined in Sarla Varma.

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 Pauloose and others v. Arun Jose and United India Insurance Company Limited 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 MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 MACA NO. 396 OF 2018`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 07.11.2017 IN O.P (MV) NO.529 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-`** - **`1 PAULOSE, S/O. MATHEW, ATHIKOTH HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT OREETHAYIL HOUSE,KAMMADAM, P.O MANDAPAM,BHEMANADY VILLAGE,VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT`** - **`2 MARRIYAKUTTY, W/O. PAULOSE, ATHIKOTH HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT OREETHAYIL HOUSE,KAMMADAM, P.O MANDAPAM,BEEMANADY VILLAGE,VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT`** - **`3 LALI, W/O. LATE THANKACHAN @ MATHEW,ATHIKOTH HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT OREETHAYIL HOUSE, KAMMADAM,P.O MANDAPAM, BHEEMANDY VILLAGE,VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.`** - **`4 ASHLY MATHEW, D/O. LATE THANKACHAN, NOW RESIDING AT OREETHAYIL HOUSE, KAMMADAM, P.O MANDAPAM,BHEEMANADY VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT`** - **`5 ALBIN MATHEW, S/O.LATE THANKACHAN, OREETHAYIL HOUSE,KAMMADAM,P.O MANDAPAM, BHEEMANADY VILLAGE,VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT`** - **`BY ADVS. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SMTSHEEBA JOSEPH`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 :-`** - **`1 ARUN JOSE, S/O. JOSE, NADATHIPAREMBIL HOUSE, KOLIYADU P.O,WEST ELERI, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN 671 314`** - **`2 THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDNITHYANANDA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,KANHANGAD, P.O KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 315`** ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`BY ADV P.A.REZIYA`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal has been filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.529 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the appellants/claimants, on 31.10.2016 at about 07.15 pm, while the deceased was walking along the edge of Chittarickal – Kunnumkai PWD road and when he reached the bus stop at Kammadam, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-60-D2965 came from the same direction hit the deceased from behind and the deceased sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries on 01.02.2016. The appellants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.34,50,000/-, which was limited to Rs.25,00,000/- 3. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 4 ``` either side. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.12,40,350/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads: **- Loss of consortium :** The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are five legal heirs for the deceased Thankachan Paul @ Mathew but the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only for the 3[rd] petitioner. As per the judgment in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** **[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** , the wife and children are entitled for loss of consortium. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant a total ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 5 ``` amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000x5) under the said head. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the tribunal under the head compensation for loss of love and affection and protection, and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of consortium. After adjusting those two amounts (1,00,000 +10,000), an additional amount of **Rs.90,000/-** (2,00,000 – 1,10,000) is granted towards the head loss of consortium. **- Funeral expenses :** The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses, whereas the appellants are entitled only for Rs.15,000/-. Going by the judgment in **Pranay Sethi** [supra] I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation paid under the head funeral expenses has to be fixed at **Rs.15,000/-.** Thus, there will be a deduction of Rs.10,000/under the said head. **- Loss of estate :** The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate. Going by the judgment in **Pranay Sethi (supra),** the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the - said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of **Rs.10,000/** ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 6 ``` under the head loss of estate. **Compensation for loss of economic benefts and - dependency:** The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the multiplier applied while awarding compensation under the head loss of economic benefits and dependency was ‘11’ instead of ‘13’. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident. On a perusal of the award it is also seen that the deceased was aged 50 years. Following the Judgment in **Sarla Varma v.Delhi Transport Corporation** (2009(6)SCC 121) and **Pranay Sethi** (supra) I find that the multiplier to be applied is ‘13’ instead of ‘11’. Hence, the compensation paid under the said head is recalculated thus: (10,650x12x13x3/4). Therefore, the total compensation payable under the said head is Rs.12,46,050/-. The tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,54,350/- and therefore, there will be an additional amount of **Rs.1,91,700/** - under the head compensation for loss of economic benefits and dependency. 6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## just and reasonable. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as ## follow:- |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **claimed**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the tribunal**|**Modifed** **in appeal**|**Total** **compensation**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|20,00,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |2|Transport to hospital|25,000|10,000|(not modifed)|10,000| |**3**|**Funeral** **expenses**|**25,000**|**25,000**|**-10,000**|**15,000**| |4|Damage to clothing|25,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |5|Others :- Medical and bystander expenses|50,000|36,000|(not modifed)|36,000| |6|Compensation for pain and sufering|25,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |**7**|**Compensation** **for loss of love** **and afection** **andprotection**|**2,00,000**|**10,000**|**-10,000**|**Nil**| |**8**|**Compensation** **for loss of** **economic** **benefts and** **dependency**|**10,00,000**|**10,54,350**|**1,91,700**|**12,46,050**| |**9**|**Loss of** **consortium**|**1,00,000**|**1,00,000**|**1,00,000**|**2,00,000**| |**10**|**Compensation** **for loss of** **estate**|**Not** **claimed**|**5,000**|**10,000**|**15,000**| ||**TOTAL**|**34,50,000** **limited to** **25,00,000**|**12,40,350**|**2,81,700**|**15,22,050**| Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the ``` MACA NO. 396 OF 2018 ``` ``` 8 ``` appellants/claimants is awarded an additional compensation of **Rs.2,81,700/-** (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand seven hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. It is made clear that the insurance company will be entitled to recover the amount from the 1[st] respondent. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants at the earliest in accordance with law. Sd/- **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE** ## **SMA**