High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-15Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with redi...

Praveen s/o late V. Haridas & Ors. v. M. Anandavally w/o late V. Haridas & Ors. (MACA No.1114 of 2013 (C))

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1114 OF 2013(C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2020-09-15
Court Decision / Holding: MACA would stand allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified: the loss of dependency remains Rs.23,73,462 with 30% future prospects; love and affection head is deleted; compensation for loss of consortium is apportioned among the appellants and the 1st respondent; funeral expenses and loss of estate are increased to Rs.15,000 each; total compensation becomes Rs.26,03,462. Payments to be made within three months with 9% simple interest from the date of application before the Tribunal, via NEFT/RTGS to the appellants’ bank accounts. The Insurance Company must credit the amounts accordingly, with identification and AADHAAR details provided.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with redistribution of heads; payment to be made within three months with 9% interest; NEFT/RTGS mode.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Praveen s/o late V. Haridas
Prasanth s/o late V. Haridas
Hemadevi d/o late V. Haridas
D. Kamalamma
Prabhakumari Amma w/o late V. Haridas

Respondents

M. Anandavally w/o late V. Haridas, Meledath House, Kolathara, Calicut (PIN 673 655)
Hamza s/o Abboobacker, Kannamveettikavil, Cherikuzhithattara, Parambath, Cherukavu Amsom, Desom, PIN 673 663
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, By Pass Junction, NBR Road, Manjeri, Malappuram District, PIN 676 121

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. B. Mohanlal

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri. AVM. Salahudin
• Adv. Sri. P. Jacob Mathew
• Adv. Sri. Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) filed in the Kerala High Court arising out of an award in MAC No. 1031/2001 dated 16-12-2011 of the I Addl. MAC Trial Court, Kozhikode. The appellants—children, wife and mother of the deceased Haridas—seek enhancement of compensation following a LOD (loss of dependency) award after a fatal motor-vehicle collision on 22-08-1999, where Haridas died after his bike collided with a pick-up van. The deceased was claimed to have been employed as a Senior Assistant with the Airport Authority of India, with a salary certificate showing Rs. 14,491 per month; the Insurance Company and the Tribunal had treated the salary differently, with the insurer contending Rs.12,000 and arguing on the multiplier based on superannuation age. The court finds no proof of retirement at age 58 for the AAI and notes no cross-examination on this specific ground, so it cannot assume the 58-year superannuation age. The Tribunal awarded Rs.18,25,740 for loss of dependency, with 30% future prospects, totaling Rs.23,73,462. It also granted small sums for love and affection, and for loss of estate and funeral. The court holds that compensation for love and affection is not permissible as a head of loss, but allows parental/filial consortium compensation per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram, distributing it among the appellants and the 1st respondent. The result is an enhanced, redistributed award culminating in a total of Rs.26,03,462, with payment within three months and NEFT/RTGS transfer.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Loss of parental/filial consortium as a permissible head of compensation (per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782)
Principle that loss of love and affection is not a separate head of compensation under the present facts
Pranay Sethi and Others guidelines for computation of compensation in motor accident claims (2017 (5) KHC 350)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased was employed as a Senior Assistant in the Airport Authority of India and earned a monthly salary of Rs. 14,491, a figure supported by a salary certificate accepted by the Tribunal. The insurer contends that the petition claimed only Rs. 12,000 per month and that the multiplier of 14 was used because the deceased was 45 at the time of the accident. The appeal challenges the Tribunal’s reliance on the salary figure and questions the adopted superannuation age. The appellants argue for higher dependency loss, incorporate future prospects, and seek proper allocation of awards between family members.

Contentions of Respondents

The Insurance Company argues the petition asserted a salary of Rs.12,000 and that the 14-year multiplier was based on the age of 45, requesting a split multiplier if retirement age of 58 is applied. It also questions the Tribunal’s computation of dependency and cross-examination grounds. It contends no conclusive evidence of retirement age and that superannuation age should have been settled, or at least cross-examined, affecting the multiplier and salary.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram	2018 ACJ 2782	Positive	Court adopts the progeny of Magma General Insurance for loss of parental/filial consortium and applies it to the distribution among appellants and respondent.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	2017 (5) KHC 350	Positive	Court relies on Pranay Sethi guidelines for calculating compensation heads (loss of dependency, funeral, loss of estate) and appropriate percentage additions.

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 Praveen s/o late V. Haridas & Ors. v. M. Anandavally w/o late V. Haridas & Ors. (MACA No.1114 of 2013 (C)) 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013(C)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1031/2001 DATED 16-12-2011 OF IST ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **1 PRAVEEN S/O LATE V.HARIDAS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT DEVI NIVAS, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.** - **2 PRASATH S/O LATE V.HARIDAS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT DEVI NIVAS, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.** **3 HEMADEVI D/O LATE V.HARIDAS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT DEVI NIVAS, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.** - **4 D.KAMALAMMA** **MOTHER OF LATE V.HARIDAS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT DEVI NIVAS, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.** **5 PRABHAKUMARI AMMA W/O LATE V.HARIDAS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT DEVI NIVAS, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 M.ANANDAVALLY W/O LAE V.HARIDAS, MELEDATH HOUSE, P.O. KOLATHARA, CALICUT, PIN:673 655.** - **2 HAMZA** **S/O ABOOBACKER, KANNAMVEETTIKAVIL,** **CHERIKUZHITHATTARA, PARAMBATH, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, DESOM, PIN:673 663.** **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 2** **3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, BY PASSJUNCTION, NBR ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN:676 121.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 3** ## **JUDGMENT** **On 22.08.1999, one Haridas while riding a bike, suffered grievous injuries by reason of a motor vehicle accident, when the bike collided with a pick up van. The injured died on the spot. The appellants are the children, wife and mother of the deceased. The 1[st] respondent is said to be the 2[nd] wife of the deceased. As of now, there is no dispute between the appellants and the 1[st] respondent, which has been settled before the Tribunal. The appeal is only for enhancement. The appellants claim that the deceased was working as a Senior Assistant in Airport Authority of India, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.14,491/-. The salary certificate was produced which was accepted by the Tribunal.** **2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company however submits that, in the claim petition, the appellants had only claimed Rs.12,000/- as monthly salary. It is also submitted that 14 was taken as the multiplier** **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 4** **since the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident and after 14 years, he would be 59 and the age of super annuation is at 58. There has to be split multiplier adopted to compute loss of dependency, is the argument.** **3. There was no proof offered before the Tribunal that the deceased would have retired at 58 years. It is seen that there was neither an objection raised on that specific ground before the Tribunal nor did the Insurance Company seek for cross examination of the claimants on that aspect. In such circumstances, this Court cannot assume that the superannuation age in Airport Authority of India is 58 years.** **4. For loss of dependency, an amount of Rs.18,25,740/- was granted by the Tribunal. Future prospects was adopted at 30% also. For loss of dependency, an amount of Rs.23,73,462/has been granted. For love and affection, an amount of Rs.5,000/- each was awarded to the wife, three children and also the mother.** ## **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 5** **Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.** **5. There is no head permissible as compensation for love and affection. However, children are entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium and the mother for loss of filial consortium, as per** _**[Magma General Ins.Co.Ltd V. Nanu Ram 2018 ACJ 2782]**_ **. Admittedly, the deceased had two wives. The 1[st] respondent who is the 2[nd] wife claims that the husband was residing with her and that the deceased was divorced before entering into a marriage with her. The divorce is specifically denied by the appellants. In any event, there was no reason for the Tribunal to enter a finding on that aspect, since the matter was settled between the parties. In such circumstances, the compensation for loss of spousal consortium will be shared by the 4[th] appellant and the 1[st] respondent.** **6. The total compensation for loss of consortium will be Rs.1,20,000/-, for the three** ## **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 6** **minor children, Rs.40,000/- for the mother of the deceased and Rs.20,000/- each for the 4[th] appellant and the 1[st] respondent. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each as has been declared in** _**[ National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (5) KHC 350].**_ **The compensation granted for loss of love and affection would stand deleted. Except the compensation for loss of consortium which would be the entitlement of each appellants and the 1[st] respondent, the other compensation will be shared as directed by the Tribunal.** **7. Accordingly, the following** **enhancements are made to the award passed by the** ## **Tribunal:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded** **by the** **Tribunal** `|**Total amount** **after** **enhancement in** **appeal** `| |---|---|---|---| |**1**|**Loss of dependency**|**2373462**|**2373462**| |**2**|**Loss of love and** **affection**|**15000**|**Deleted**| ## **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 7** |**3**|**Funeral expenses**|**5000**|**15000**| |---|---|---|---| |**4**|**Loss of estate**|**5000**|**15000**| |**5**|**Loss of consortium** **children** **Mother** **4th appellant** **1st respondent**|**----** **----** **-----** **-----**|**120000** **40000** **20000** **20000**| ||**Total**|**2398462**|**2603462**| **MACA would stand allowed. The payment** **as per the award and the modification made herein shall be made within three months with interest as directed by the Tribunal @ 9% from the date of application before the Tribunal, after deducting the amounts already paid or deposited. The appellants shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the Bank Account in a Nationalized Bank in their individual name or joint names or in one of their names with authorisation from others; along with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, with copy to the Insurance Company. The 1[st] respondent shall also likewise provide the account number with identification card. The Insurance Company** **MACA.No.1114 OF 2013 8** **shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said accounts, in accordance with the apportionment made by the Tribunal; failing which the Tribunal shall proceed with the recovery in accordance with law.** **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **uu** **15.09.2020**