High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-05Appeal allowed; award modified; additional comp...

Philomina George Kaimalathouse, K G Sabu, and Laisa Johny v. V. S. Ajmal and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2024-02-05
Court Decision / Holding: This appeal is allowed; the MACT award is modified to grant enhanced compensation as detailed, with the insurer directed to deposit the enhanced sum with interest at the prescribed rate. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned on the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay on the additional amount. The insurer is at liberty to exclude the delay period while computing interest on the enhanced amount.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award modified; additional compensation awarded and to be deposited within three months; delay condoned; no interest on the delay period for the extra amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Philomina George Kaimalathouse
K G Sabu
Laisa Johny

Respondents

V.S. Ajmal
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. V. Rajan

Counsels for Respondents

• N.S. Najeeb
• P. JayaSankar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1711 of 2013) arises from a 22.09.2010 death of K.J. George in a motor-vehicle accident, allegedly caused by a vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured by the second. The deceased’s widow and two children (the appellants) approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for death caused by negligence. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver and held the insurer liable, awarding Rs.1,43,265 with interest at 8% from the petition date. The appellants challenged the quantum, contending the deceased’s income was Rs.4,000 per month and that higher heads like loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium warranted larger sums. The High Court, re-evaluating, held Rs.4,000 as the monthly income, applied a multiplier of 5 (deceased age 71), and did not accept a 50% deduction for dependents, instead applying the standard 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. It recalculated loss of dependency at Rs.1,60,000 (Rs.4,000 x 12 x 5 x 2/3) with Rs.80,000 already awarded, and augmented funeral expenses to Rs.15,000 and loss of estate to Rs.15,000. For loss of consortium, the Court relied on Magma General Insurance, United India and Satinder Kaur decisions to award Rs.1,07,500, while following Satinder Kaur (2021) to offset any separate loss of love and affection. The total compensation was determined as Rs.2,09,000, and the appeal was allowed by modifying the MACT award, with an additional amount of Rs.2,09,500 to be deposited within three months, with delay condoned but no interest on the extra amount for the period of delay.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

1/3 deduction for personal expenses (under MV Act)
Loss of consortium principle; no separate damage for love and affection when consortium is awarded (Satinder Kaur)
Use of Pranay Sethi guidelines for heads such as funeral expenses and loss of estate
Awards for loss of consortium based on Magma General Insurance and United India/Satinder Kaur decisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased’s income was Rs.4,000 per month and that the MACT adopted Rs.2,000. Given the 2010 date, the age of 71 did not preclude higher dependency. They urged that the standard deduction should be 1/3 of income (not 50%), and that the court should apply the apex court guidelines (Pranay Sethi) to enhance heads including loss of dependency, funeral expenses and loss of estate. They asserted the insurer’s liability and that the head of loss of consortium for the wife and children was warranted; they relied on decisions like Magma and United India for consortium compensation and Satinder Kaur for avoiding double counting with love and affection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended the dependents' headcount and the reduction should be calibrated; they urged that the 2nd and 3rd appellants were grown and merits of 50% deduction for personal expenses should apply. They challenged the quantum head by the Tribunal, argued against inflation in funeral expenses and loss of estate, and maintained liability of the insurer limited to agreed terms. They did not contest negligence but sought restraint on enhancement beyond the Tribunal’s framework, arguing for a conservative award consistent with the evidence available and the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4) KLT 662(SC)	Positive	Used to reframe heads of compensation and apply standard practices for heads like funeral expenses and loss of estate; supports recalculation with Pranay Sethi principles.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram	(2018) 18 SCC 130	Positive	Applied to award loss of consortium to the wife and children (Rs 40,000 each) per SC guidance.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur	[2020] SCC OnLine SC 410	Positive	Used to support computation and recognition of loss of consortium as a head of compensation.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Other	(2021)11 SCC 780	Positive	Established the principle that no separate compensation for loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded; guided adjustment in this case.

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 Philomina George Kaimalathouse, K G Sabu, and Laisa Johny v. V. S. Ajmal and The Oriental 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. ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2000/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT ``` ## **`CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM`** ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 PHILOMINA GEORGE KAIMALATH HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE P O,682508, ERNAKULAM DIST`** - **`2 K G SABU AGED 42 YEARS S/O.LATE GEORGE K J,KAIMALATH HOUSE, PUTHVYPE P O, ERNAKULAM DIST-682508, ERNAKULAM DIST`** - **`3 LAISA JOHNY D/O.LATE GEORGE K J, KAIMALATH HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE P O, ERNAKULAM DIST-682508, ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADV SRI.K.V.RAJAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 V.S.AJMAL S/O.SHAMSUDDIN,VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P O, ERNAKULAM DIST-682502`** - **`2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD`** ``` RUKIYABAGH, 2ND FLOOR,RAVIPURAM, M G ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.N.S.NAJEEB - R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellants were the petitioners in O.P. (MV)No.2000 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. 2. The said claim petition was filed by the appellants, seeking compensation for the death of one K.J. George due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 22.09.2010. The deceased was the husband of the 1[st] appellant and the father of appellants 2 and 3. The accident occurred when he was knocked down by the vehicle driven and owned by the 1[st] respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the 2[nd] respondent. The deceased was aged 71 years at the time of the accident and he claimed to be a construction worker with a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances, seeking compensation. 3. The 2[nd] respondent resisted the claim by submitting a written statement in which they admitted the coverage of the policy with respect to the said vehicle. They disputed the liability on various grounds, ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** and the quantum of compensation as well. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A11 from the side of the appellants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent, the driver of the bus. The 2[nd] respondent was also held liable to pay the compensation. 5. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.1,43,265/- and the 2[nd] respondent was directed to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is filed by the appellants in such circumstances being to be satisfied with the quantum of compensation. 6. Heard Sri. K.V. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Sri. N.S. Najeeb, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 7. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement of compensation is warranted or not. On perusal of the records, I find force in ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is to be noted that even though a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- claimed, the Tribunal accepted the same as only Rs.2,000/-. Of course, it is true that the deceased was aged 71 years. However, considering the fact that the accident occurred in 2010, the monthly income of Rs.2,000/- appears to be very low. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to treat Rs.4,000/- which is claimed by the appellants as the monthly income of the deceased, as unreasonable. Therefore, Rs.4,000/- could be taken as the monthly income for assessing the compensation. As the deceased was aged 71 years, the multiplier applicable was 5. 8. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent highlighted that the 2[nd] and 3[rd] appellants were grown up, and therefore, they cannot be treated as dependent. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the proper deduction should be 50%. However, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. Even if the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents were treated as not ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** dependent on the deceased, the fact that the 1[st] respondent was the wife of the deceased cannot be ignored. The purpose of making deductions is to eliminate the amount the deceased would have spent towards his personal expenses. As far as the person aged 71 years living with his spouse is concerned, the scope of the personal expenses would be limited. Most of the expenses would be shared by the deceased and his wife, and therefore, the proper deduction can only be 1/3 which is the standard deduction contemplated under the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the said deduction is to be followed in this case. Accordingly, while reassessing the compensation with the above criteria, the amount of compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,60,000/- (R.4,000 X 12 X 5 X 2/3). The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.80,000/-: thus, the additional compensation will come to **Rs.80,000/-** . 9. When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,500/- ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** towards funeral expenses, whereas the proper amount should have been Rs.15,000/- in the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)].** Therefore, a further sum of **Rs.7,500/-** is awarded under the said head. Similarly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards loss of estate. In the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)]** the proper amount is Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, a further sum of **Rs.14,000/-** is awarded under the said head. 11. The next head which requires re-consideration is the loss of consortium. In the light of **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130]** and **United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Satinder Kaur, [2020 SCC OnLine SC 410]** all the claimants being the wife and two children of the deceased, were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each and thus making out a total amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. In this case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of consortium and a sum ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for loss of love and affection. 12. As per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Other [(2021)11 SCC 780],** when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, no separate compensation needs to be granted for loss of love and affection, and hence, the said amount can be adjusted towards the compensation for loss of consortium fixed by this Court. Thus, the additional amount under the head would come to **Rs.1,07,500/** -. 13. Accordingly the total compensation is determined as **Rs.2,09,000/-** (Rs.80,000/- + 7,500/- + 14,000/- + 1,07,500/-) In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the award dated 16.12.2011 in O.P. (MV)No.2000/2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.2,09,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Nine thousand Five hundred only) and the said amount shall be deposited from the 2[nd] respondent with interest at the rate as ``` MACA NO. 1711 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. However, it is clarified that, as this Court condoned the delay of 430 days in filing the appeal on the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the additional amount pertaining to the period of delay, the 2[nd] respondent shall be at liberty to excluded the said period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. This appeal is allowed accordingly. **Sd/-** **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A,** **JUDGE** LU