High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-01-09Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation as detail...

P.K. Kuruvila and Others v. Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd. and Ors

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1193/2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2024-01-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the award dated 17.11.2011 in O.P.(MV).No.2005 of 2005 is modified by awarding an additional Rs.5,54,000; the insurer to deposit this amount with interest and costs within three months.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation as detailed; deposit of enhanced amount within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.K.Kuruvila
Soosan
Reena
Reji

Respondents

Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd.
Thiru Murugan
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.C. Suresh Menon
• P.S. Appu
• K.A. Anas
• A.R. Nimod

Counsels for Respondents

• P.B. Krishnan
• A.R. George
• P.M. Neelakandan
• P.B. Subramanyan
• Sabu George
• Manu Vyasan Peter

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA is Kerala High Court’s Motor Accident Claims Appeal under MACA No.1193 of 2012, arising from a death in a motor accident on 06.04.2005. The appellants (parents and dependants of Roy) challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s quantum and liability order in O.P.(MV) No.2005 of 2005, wherein the insurer was held liable for compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the ambulance driver and awarded Rs.2,76,500 with 8% interest and costs. The Insurance Company contested liability and quantum, while not disputing coverage. The High Court, applying established principles on calculation of compensation, re-evaluates the deceased’s income and the components of dependency, future prospects, deductions, and multipliers. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) and Pranay Sethi, the court fixes the monthly income at Rs.5,000 (instead of Rs.3,000), adds 40% for future prospects, and deducts 50% for personal expenses (the deceased being a bachelor). It also corrects the multiplier to 17 (age of deceased). Loss of consortium is enhanced to Rs.40,000 each to parents, with Rs.65,000 total instead of Rs.15,000. Funeral expenses rise to Rs.12,000 and loss of estate to Rs.15,000. The aggregate becomes Rs.5,54,000, and the appeal is allowed; the 3rd respondent insurer must deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within three months of receipt of the judgment.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

40% addition for future prospects (Pranay Sethi framework)
50% deduction towards personal expenses (Pranay Sethi framework)
Multiplier based on age of the deceased (17, not 14) (Pranay Sethi framework)
No separate award for loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is granted (Satinder Kaur principle)
Compensation for loss of consortium and related heads supported by Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal undervalued the decedent’s income (claimed Rs.6,000/month but Tribunal adopted Rs.3,000). Citing Ramachandrappa, they argued for fixing monthly income at Rs.5,000 in 2005. They pressed for 40% addition for future prospects, 50% deduction for personal expenses (as a bachelor), and a multiplier appropriate to the deceased’s age (17). They sought enhanced compensation for loss of dependency (calculated as Rs.7,14,000 on revised metrics), and urged compensation for loss of consortium (parents) and for funeral and estate heads. They also urged adjustment of awards to reflect contemporary SC guidance, including Rs.40,000 each for loss of consortium and appropriate treatment of love and affection head. The insurance company’s challenge rested on denying higher quantum beyond the Tribunal’s assessment and contesting negligence findings to the extent necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that coverage was admitted but negligence of the 2nd respondent and quantum contested; they submitted that the Tribunal’s order should stand, and that the assessed compensation did not warrant substantial enhancement given evidence and reliance on standard norms. They maintained that liability and the fixed heads of compensation were appropriate and that the appeal should not upset the Tribunal’s framework beyond what was demonstrably warranted by the record.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify fixing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000 despite lack of direct evidence, aligning with Supreme Court practice.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Basis for 40% future prospects and 50% personal expenses deduction; multiplier considerations.
Satinder Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	2020 (3) KHC 760	Positive	No separate award for loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is granted; used to adjust awards.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others	2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)	Positive	Supports compensation for loss of consortium to parents; informs Rs.40,000 per claimant head.
Pranay Sethi ( supra )	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Reiterates framework for future prospects, deductions and multiplier; used in tandem with Pranay Sethi.

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.K. Kuruvila and Others v. Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd. and Ors and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

MACA.No.1193/2012 1 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 19TH POUSHA, 1945_ _MACA NO. 1193 OF 2012_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 2005/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR APPELLANT/S:_ - _1 P.K.KURUVILA, PAINADATH HOUSE, KOMBAZHA, PANANCHERY, THRISSUR DIST._ - _2 SOOSAN, W/O. KURUVILA-DO-_ - _3 REENA, D/O.KURUVILA_ - _4 REJI, D/O.KURUVILA,-DO-_ _BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.K.A.ANAS SRI.A.R.NIMOD_ ## _RESPONDENT/S:_ - _1 GANGA MEDICAL CENTRE AND HOSPITAL (P)LTD., NO.II.SWARNAMBIKA LAY OUT, COMBATORE-641 009._ - _2 THIRU T MURUGAN, S/O.THANKAVEL, R/A.32, COUNDAM PALAYAM,_ MACA.No.1193/2012 2 _COIMBATORE-641 029._ _3 THE ORIENTAL INSURENCE COMPANY LIMITED SUGUNA BUILDING, 707, AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.1193/2012 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.2005 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of one Roy, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 06.04.2005. 2. The accident occurred when the auto rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling was hit by an ambulance bearing registration No.TN-38/Q-4637 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was owned by the 1[st] respondent and was insured with the 3[rd] respondent. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident and was a vegetable vendor with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The compensation was claimed in such circumstances. 3. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement, wherein they admitted the coverage of policy. However, they denied the MACA.No.1193/2012 4 negligence on the part of the vehicle and the quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A6 from the side of the appellants, and no evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent in driving the ambulance and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,76,500/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted by the appellants in such circumstances for enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.A.R.George, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company. 6. The only dispute in this case relates to the quantum of compensation. The main challenge raised by the appellants is MACA.No.1193/2012 5 with regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency. On perusal of the records, I find some force in the said contention. It is to be noted that, even though a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal took only Rs.3,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side. Of course, it is true that no evidence was adduced by the appellants to substantiate the monthly income of the deceased. But in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236]** the Honourable Supreme court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident in the year 2004, even without any evidence. In this case, the accident occurred in the year 2005, and therefore, I deem it appropriate to fix Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income in this case. 7. While assessing the compensation the Tribunal did not consider the addition to be made towards future prospects. Evidently, the deceased was aged only 26 years and in the light of **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT** **662 (SC)]** , 40% of the income ought to have been added for the MACA.No.1193/2012 6 said purpose. Similarly, as the deceased died as a bachelor, 50% deduction has to be made towards personal expenses in the light of **Pranay Sethi (supra).** Another illegality in the award was that, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14, which was applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased. In the light of **Pranay Sethi (supra)** , such an assessment was not proper. The multiplier that should have been applied was the one applicable to the age of the deceased himself, which is 17. Thus, while, re-assessing the compensation with the above revised criteria, the amount of compensation under loss of dependency would come to Rs. 7,14,000/-[(5000 + 40%) x 12 x 17 x1/2]. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,52,000/- under the said head and thus the additional compensation would come to Rs.4,62,000/-. 8. The next aspect to be noticed is the compensation for the loss of consortium. In the light of **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others 2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)** and **United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020 (3) KHC 760],** 1[st] and 2[nd] appellants, being the parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation MACA.No.1193/2012 7 under the said head at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus the total compensation under this head would come to Rs.80,000/-. However, it is seen that the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. In **Satinder Kaur (supra)** it was categorically observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that when compensation for loss of consortium is allowed, no separate amount for loss of love and affection needs to be granted. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is adjusted towards loss of consortium. Thus, the additional compensation under this head would come to Rs.65,000/-. 9. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses was Rs.3,000/- only, a further sum of Rs.12,000/is awarded in the light of **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)].** Similarly, as no amount is granted towards loss of estate, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted under the said head. Thus, the total compensation is determined as Rs.5,54,000/- [462000+65000+12000+15000]. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 17.11.2011 passed by the MACA.No.1193/2012 8 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P.(MV).No.2005 of 2005 is modified by awarding an additional amount of Rs.5,54,000/(Rupees five lakhs fifty four thousand only). The respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/12.1.24