High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-22Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation c...

P.Geetha and others v. P.Gopalan and Shaik Muhammed Nazar and National Insurance Company Ltd (MACA No.1697 of 2011)

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1697 OF 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The Tribunal’s award is modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,97,000 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of application until realization. The court clarifies that no interest is payable for a period of 1145 days due to prior order conditions.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation computed; interest specified; delay excluded as per prior order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.GEETHA
P.GOKUL KRISHNAN
P.KRISHNAPRIYA
P.GOPIKA DO.KUNHIKRISHNAN LATE

Respondents

P.GOPALAN
SHAIK MUHAMMED NAZAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.M.M.ANTO
• SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. M.A. GEORGE

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal, filed by the legal heirs of deceased Kunhikrishanan K., arises from an award in O.P. (MV) No.536/2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. On 10-10-2004, the deceased was travelling in a jeep when a bus collided with it, resulting in fatal injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,33,000 with 9% interest, which the appellants challenge, arguing that the compensation for loss of dependency and other heads was miscalculated. The appellants contend that the deceased’s income in 2004 should be higher (relying on Ramachandrappa) and that the correct multiplier and deduction for personal expenses from four dependants (Sarla Verma principle) should be applied, with future prospects added (25%). They also seek enhanced amounts for loss of consortium (as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram), funeral expenses, and loss of estate. The insurer contends the Tribunal’s methods were incorrect, advocating a lower deduction and a multiplier of 14. The High Court, after considering the arguments and applying relevant precedents, partially allows the appeal, recalculating enhanced compensation at Rs. 4,97,000 with 8% interest from the date of application, while excluding 1145 days of delay as per an earlier order."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another – deduction of personal expenses at 1/4 where there are four dependents and assessment of future prospects (25%)
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram – fixation of monthly income for a coolie (Rs. 4500 in 2004)
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others – loss of consortium awards (Rs. 40,000 each)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 2,500 for 2004; citing Ramachandrappa (2011) to justify Rs. 4,000 monthly income, arguing the coolie wage in 2004 warranted higher earnings. They argued the correct multiplier should be 14 (not 15). They contended that four dependents require 1/4 deduction for personal expenses (as per Sarla Verma), and that 25% future prospects should be added. With these adjustments, the recalculated dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate yield an enhanced amount of Rs. 4,97,000, plus interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application, with a direction to exclude 1145 days delay as per a prior order. The appellants emphasize the need to fairly compensate dependents and apply established guidelines for multipliers and future prospects.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel urged that the Tribunal’s approach should be corrected by adopting a multiplier of 14 and applying the Sarla Verma guidance of a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses in a four-dependant scenario. They acknowledged the need to consider future prospects but argued that the recalculation remains within the established framework. They supported the existing head of compensation and argued acceptable assessment of monthly income and dependency. Overall, they pressed for consistency with Supreme Court and High Court precedents in calculating loss of dependency, loss of consortium and other heads, cautioned against overstatement of earnings, and supported the court’s cautious approach to interest and delay adjustments.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram	2011(13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify higher monthly income for the deceased (Rs. 4,000) in 2004.
Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another	2010 (2) KLT 802	Positive	Applied to support 1/4 deduction for personal expenses in presence of four dependents.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others	(2018) 18 SCC 130	Positive	Used to justify higher awards for loss of consortium (Rs. 40,000 each) in the given context.

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.Geetha and others v. P.Gopalan and Shaik Muhammed Nazar and National Insurance Company Ltd (MACA No.1697 of 2011) 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.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 536/2005 DATED 12-05-2008 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD** ## **APPELLANTS:** |**1**|**P.GEETHA**| |---|---| ||**AGED 39 YEARS,**| ||**KUNNAMVAYAL HOUSE,**| ||**BELOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**HOSDURG TALUK,**| ||**P.O.PADIMARATHU.**| |**2**|**P.GOKUL KRISHNAN**| ||**S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN (LATE),**| ||**AGED 18 YEARS,**| ||**KUNNAMVAYAL HOUSE,**| ||**BELOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**HOSDURG TALUK,**| ||**P.O.PADIMARATHU.**| |**3**|**P.KRISHNAPRIYA**| ||**D/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN (LATE),**| ||**AGED 16 YEARS, (MINOR) THROUGH NEXT FRIEND, AND**| ||**MOTHER P.GEETHA,**| ||**W/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN,**| ||**KUNNAMVAYAL HOUSE,**| ||**BELOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**HOSDURG TALUK.**| |**4**|**P.GOPIKA DO.KUNHIKRISHNAN LATE**| ||**AGED 14 YEARS, (MINOR) THROUGH NEXT FRIEND, AND**| ||**MOTHER P.GEETHA,**| ||**W/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN,**| ||**KUNNAMVAYAL HOUSE,**| ||**BELOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**HOSDURG TALUK.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.M.M.ANTO**| ||**SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS**| **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **2** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**P.GOPALAN**| |---|---| ||**PALAPPUZHA, KODOTH,**| ||**BELOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**HOSDURG TALUK,**| ||**P.O.UDAYAPURAM, PIN-671 323.**| |**2**|**SHAIK MUHAMMED NAZAR**| ||**S/O.SHAIK ABOOBAKER SAHIB,**| ||**CHULLIKKARA,**| ||**BELOOR VILLAGE, P.O.PADIMARATHU,**| ||**KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 531.**| |**3**|**NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.**| ||**BRANCH OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR HIGH LANE PLAZA,,**| ||**M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI. M.A. GEORGE**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.03.2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. =================== MACA No.1697 OF 2011 =================== Dated this the 22[nd] day of March 2021** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P (MV) No.536/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased, Kunhikrishanan K. It was a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The short facts are like this:- On 10.10.2004 at about 4.15 p.m., the deceased was proceeding to his house at Padimaruthu by driving a jeep bearing Registration No. KL-14.D/9000 along with his father Kumaran Nair, mother Bhavani Amma and his brother Peethambaran and when the vehicle reached at Eriya, the Bus bearing Registration No. KL-14.D/2087 came from the opposite side and hit against **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **4** the jeep bearing Registration No. KL-14.D/9000. As a result, the deceased Kunhikrishanan K and others sustained injuries. The deceased Kunhikrishanan K succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Kunhikrishanan K. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the 1[st] respondent. Second respondent is the owner and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. 3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the petitioners. One witness was also examined on the side of petitioners. After going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that, the appellant is entitled an amount of Rs.3,33,000/with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **5** company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the tribunal fixed the compensation for dependency taking Rs.2,500/- as monthly income of the deceased. The learned counsel submitted that, the accident happened in the year 2004 and even a coolie will get more than Rs.2,500/-. The claim of the petitioners is only Rs.4,000/I think, the claim of the petitioners can be accepted. There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. In _**Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236],**_ the Apex Court fixed an amount of Rs.4500/- as monthly income to a coolie in the year 2004. In this case also the accident happened in 2004. According to the petitioners, the deceased was getting only Rs.4,000/-. In such circumstances, this Court can accept the claim of the petitioners and the monthly income of the deceased can be safely fixed as Rs.4,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **6** insurance company submitted that, the multiplier used by the tribunal is not correct and the correct multiplier is 14 and it is wrongly taken as 15. I think, the correct multiplier is 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the tribunal deducted 1/3 of the compensation towards the personal expense of the deceased instead of 1/4. The learned counsel submitted that there are four dependents. It is conceded by both sides that, in the light of the decision in _**Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT 802],**_ in such situation only ¼ is to be deducted from the compensation towards the personal expense of the deceased. While fixing the monthly income 25% is to be added towards future prospectus. Then the monthly income is to be reassessed as Rs.5,000/-. Based on the same, the compensation for dependency is to be re assessed in the following manner; Rs.5,000 X 12 X 14 X 3/4= Rs.6,30,000/- 7. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is already given by **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **7** the tribunal and that is to be deducted from the above amount. Then the enhanced amount entitled by the appellants will be Rs.6,30,000–3,00,000= **Rs.3,30,000/-** . 8. The appellant is entitled another amount of Rs.12,000/- towards funeral expense because only an amount of Rs.3,000/- is granted in that head. The appellants are the wife and minor children of the deceased and they are entitled compensation for loss of consortium. In the light of the decision in _**Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others.[(2018) 18 SCC 130],**_ they are entitled an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each and that the amount will be Rs. 1,60,000/-. The amount already granted in this head is Rs. 10,000/-. Then the balance amount entitled by appellants towards the loss of consortium is Rs.1,50,000/-. The appellants are entitled another amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate because only Rs.10,000/- is granted. 9. In the light of the above discussion, the **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **8** enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant can be summarized like this: - - 1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,30,000/- - 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,50,000/3. Funeral expense - Rs.12,000/- - 4. Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- ------------------ **Total Rs.4,97,000/-** == ======== 10. The appellants are entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till realisation. But I make it clear that, the appellant is not entitled interest for a period of 1145 days, because the appeal is filed with a delay of 1145 days. As per order dated 15.11.2011, this Court condoned the delay on condition that if enhancement of compensation is granted in the appeal, the delay period will be excluded while calculating interest. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled interest for a period of 1145 days. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the effect that the **MACA.No.1697 OF 2011** **9** appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of application till realisation. I make it clear that, the appellants are not entitled interest for a period of 1145 days in the light of order dated 15.11.2011 in C.M.A. No. 2555 of 2011. **(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** LU