Porunnakoth Thomas and others v. P. Santhosh Kumar and others and The United India Insurance Company Limited

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2016-09-08
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, enhanced compensation by Rs 1,83,000, with Rs 95,000 to the husband and the balance to be shared among appellants; set aside the 15% allocation to Aali and directed equal apportionment among appellants; ordered 8% interest from petition date; insurance company to pay within two months; no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation; 15% to Aali set aside; no costs; insurer to pay within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Porunnakoth Thomas
Ansamma Anto @ P.T. Ansamma
P.T. Thomas @ Tomy
P.T. Mini

Respondents

P. Santhosh Kumar
V. C. Sheen
The United India Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. U. Shailajan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. C. P. Peethambaran
• Sri. John Joseph Vettikkad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment concerns MACA 760/2011, challenging an MACT Thalassery award (O.P.(MV) 666/2005) dated 13 August 2010 for Lilly Thomas’s death in a road accident on 24 December 2004. The appellants—husband and four children—contend that the Tribunal under-compensated the deceased’s dependency and heads of damage. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs 2,500, despite evidence of Rs 3,581 from hospital work. The appellants assert Lilly Thomas was a pensioner/housewife, justify using Rs 3,000 monthly income per Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218), and apply a multiplier of 9 for a 56-year-old, yielding higher loss of dependency (Rs 2,16,000) than the Tribunal’s Rs 1,60,000. They seek additional awards for loss of estate, clothing, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and higher funeral expenses. The respondents counter lack of cogent evidence of hospital employment and contest dependents beyond the second appellant. The High Court re-assesses, finds the income/heads warrant augmentation, awards an additional amount of Rs 1,83,000 (with Rs 95,000 to the husband and the rest shared among appellants), imposes 8% interest, and sets aside a 15% ‘outsider’ allocation to Aali, directing equal apportionment among appellants. The insurer is directed to pay within two months; there is no costs order."

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued Lilly Thomas was a pensioner/housewife and that the Tribunal under-assessed her income (Rs 2,500 vs. Rs 3,581 evidence). Relying on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, they urged Rs 3,000 monthly income and multiplier 9 due to age (56). They sought higher sums for loss of estate, clothing, pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and especially for loss of consortium (husband’s claim) and for 15% to a non-party Aali to be set aside. They contended she was educated/empirical evidence supported reliance on pensioner-housewife status. Respondents: The insurer argued there was no cogent evidence of hospital employment and that dependents beyond the second appellant cannot be treated as dependents; sought no interference with the Tribunal’s quantum.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer submitted that the claimed earnings were not substantiated and the claimed dependents beyond the second child cannot be treated as dependents; argued the award was just and should not be interfered with.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar	AIR 2001 SC 3218	Positive	Used as authority to fix monthly income at Rs 3,000 for housewife/pensioner and apply multiplier 9 per age, increasing dependency calculation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/17TH BHADRA, 1938 MACA.No. 760 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 666/2005 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY DATED 13-08-2010 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. PORUNNAKOTH THOMAS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, PORUNNAKOTH HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR,, P.O.AMBAYATHODE. 2. ANSAMMA ANTO @ P.T.ANSAMMA, - D/O.LILLY THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, PANACHIYIL, P.O.MADATHIL, IRITTY. 3. P.T.THOMAS @ TOMY, S/O.LILLY THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, PORUNNAKOTH HOUSE, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI. 4. P.T.MINI, D/O.LILLY THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, KALATHILPARAMBIL, NEAR KANDERI VAYANASSALA, MOONAMPEEDIKA, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- ## 1. P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SATHYA BHAVAN, P.O.THOLAMBRA,, MATTANNUR, PIN- 670702. 2. V.C.SHEEN, S/O.CHANDRAN, SHEEN NIVAS, P.O. MALUR, MATTANUR, PIN 670 702. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THALASSERY BRANCH, P.B.NO.97, RAFEEQUE TOWERS, NARANGAPURAM, THALASSERY, PIN -670101. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **========================== M.A.C.A. No.760 OF 2011 ==========================** Dated this the 8[th] day of September, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is preferred against the award dated 13.8.2010 made in O.P.(MV).No.666 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2.When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the claim was in respect of one Lilly Thomas who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.12.2004. She died on the third day of the accident while undergoing treatment. It is submitted that for **M.A.C.A.760/2011** 2 assessment purpose, the Tribunal considered only `2,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased even though there was evidence produced to show that she was working in a hospital and her monthly income was `3,581/-. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on various heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc. are on a lower side. 3.We heard Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. It is submitted before us that even though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working in a hospital, no cogent evidence was produced by the claimants to substantiate the same. It is also the submission that the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of the accident and claimant Nos.2 to 4 who are the children of the deceased cannot be considered as dependents who are aged 37, 35 and 33 years respectively at the time of the application. It is also the submission that considering all those **M.A.C.A.760/2011** 3 aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and an interference by this Court is not warranted. 4.After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and also after going through the award, we feel that this appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 5.The case of the appellants/claimants is that the deceased Lilly Thomas was a pensioner from Christ Raj Hospital, Kuthuparamba and she was also engaged in coolie works and was having a monthly income of `3,581/-. It can be seen that the Tribunal considering the age and all other attending circumstances, an amount of `2,500/- was considered as monthly income, for calculation purpose. Surely, the case of the claimants is that the deceased was a pensioner. If that is so, she can be considered as a house wife after her retirement. Then, considering the fact that in the case of a house wife in the age group **M.A.C.A.760/2011** 4 of 34-59, the Apex Court considered a monthly income of `3000/- in **Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218]** and adopting the same income for the deceased and further considering the fact that the multiplier available for the age group of 56 years is 9, the loss of dependency is re-assessed. Then, the amount available will be `2,16,000/- (3000x12x9x⅔). It can be seen that a sum of `1,60,000/is awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellants will be entitled for an additional compensation of `56,000/- on this head. No amount is seen awarded towards loss of estate. A sum of `5,000/- is awarded on the said head. Similarly, no amount is seen awarded towards damage to clothing. A sum of `1,000/- is awarded on this head. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of `5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the first appellant who is the husband of the deceased will be entitled for an additional compensation of `95,000/- on this head. Towards funeral expenses, only a sum of `9,000/- is seen awarded. An additional sum of `16,000/- is granted on this head. Even though she **M.A.C.A.760/2011** 5 died only on the third day of the accident while undergoing treatment, no amount is seen awarded towards pain and suffering. A sum of `10,000/- is awarded on this head. Thus, the appellants will be entitled for an additional compensation of `1,83,000/-. Out of the same, `95,000/- will be exclusively entitled by the husband of the deceased. Balance amount shall be shared equally in between the appellants. The additional compensation will carry 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also came to our notice that 15% of the amount was ordered to be given to one Aali who was allegedly the mother of the deceased. It can be seen that she is not a party to the lower court proceedings as well as before this Court. There is nothing on record to show that she is a dependent of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the direction of the Tribunal awarding 15% of the award to the said Aali is hereby set aside and the said amount shall **M.A.C.A.760/2011** 6 also be apportioned equally in between the appellants/claimants before this Court. No order as to costs. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.760/2011** 7 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT** 8 ## **M.A.C.A.760/2011** **September, 2010**