High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-21Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and depos...

Pushpa and Others v. J. Vinod and Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2000 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.7,23,640 (at 7.5% interest). The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, along with the necessary court-fee adjustments. The balance, after accounting for amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, is to be paid to the appellants in equal proportion. The order also directs payment of additional medical expenses (Rs.12,240) and adjusts funerary and consortium claims in line with the judgment, while disallowing some heads per Satinder Kaur.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and deposits ordered; further directions issued regarding court fee and distribution of enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pushpa
Kiran (minor) represented by guardian Pushpa
Baby
Jayanti

Respondents

J. Vinod
The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)
The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shiju Varghese
• Sripramoj Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• John Joseph Vettikad
• C. Joseph Johny
• Alex Antony Sebastian (Standing Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard MACA No.2000 of 2012, an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act challenging an award dated 13 April 2012 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The appellants, legal representatives/dependants of Sudheesh, sought enhanced compensation after a KSRTC bus collision left him seriously injured and ultimately deceased. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded Rs.6,57,500 with interest at 7.5%. The major challenge before the High Court was the Tribunal’s determination of the deceased’s monthly income and the resulting dependency loss. Ext.A9 showed a consolidated salary of Rs.10,000, but the Tribunal fixed Rs.5,000 and relied on limited breakdown. The appellants urged applying the Ramachandrappa principle to determine actual income and argued for the 40% future-prospects enhancement per Pranay Sethi and related precedents. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa (2011) 13 SCC 236 and the 40% future-prospects doctrine from National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 650, increased the monthly income to Rs.9,800 after accounting for age. It then applied a 1/3 deduction for dependency and recalculated the loss of dependency, noting that the tribunal’s 1/3 deduction was justified. The court allowed further conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of consortium, medical expenses) and disallowed some heads per Satinder Kaur (AIR 2020 SC 3076). The final enhanced compensation was Rs.7,23,640, with deposit and court-fee adjustments and directions to the insurer.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. — earnings/earning capacity in MACT cases (income estimation).
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. — 40% future prospects for younger deceased.
Pranay Sethi — future prospects doctrine for computing compensation.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur — reduction/adjustment of conventional heads in certain cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.7,000 instead of reflecting Ext.A9’s Rs.10,000, and that the evidence pointed to the deceased’s work as a plumber with higher earnings. They invoked Ramachandrappa to determine actual income and applied the 40% future-prospects rule from Pranay Sethi, arguing for a higher calculation of dependency loss. They contended that the 1/3 deduction should be applied proportionately among dependents and highlighted medical expenses of Rs.12,240 and funeral and consortium heads claimed under Pranay Sethi; they urged inclusion of these charges and appropriate adjustment of medical bills, asserting that the Tribunal undervalued the overall compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Ext.A9 did not clearly show salary components and that there were no reliable records of Rs.10,000 monthly wage for the deceased; hence the Tribunal’s fixed income of Rs.7,000 was reasonable. They argued that the evidence did not establish a higher ongoing salary and that the dependency calculation should be bounded by the Tribunal’s approach. They opposed extending significant additional sums and argued for standard deductions and the Tribunal’s multipliers as appropriate.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify relying on earnings/earning capacity to fix the deceased’s income under MACT.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.	2017 (16) SCC 650	Positive	Applied 40% future prospects for a younger deceased as per Pranay Sethi.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur	AIR 2020 SC 3076	Positive	Used to support the reduction of certain heads (pain and suffering, love and affection) in MACT awards.

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 Pushpa and Others v. J. Vinod and Others 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 A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944** **MACA NO. 2000 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.4.2012 IN OP(MV)NO.455/2009 OF** **MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :** **1 PUSHPA, W/O.LATE SUDHEESH C.S., AGED 36 YEARS, ELAVUNKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2 KIRAN, S/O.SUDHEESH C.S., MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND PUSHPA, ELAVUMKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3 BABY, W/O.SUGATHAN, ELAVUMKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 4 JAYANTHI, D/O.SUGATHAN, ELAVUMKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.** **SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE SRIPRAMOJ ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** **1 J.VINOD, S/O.JANARDHANAN, VINOD BHAVAN, NOORANADU LSPO, KOTTAIKATTUSSERIMURI KARA, THAMARKULAM BHAGOM, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST., PIN-690101** MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..2.. - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001** - **3 THE MANAGER,** **NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY BY SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A., STANDING COUNSEL** ## **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR** **ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.2000 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **MACA No.2000 of 2012** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The original petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.455 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala impugn award dated 13.4.2012 in the above case on the ground of inadequacy. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard Adv.Sri.Shiju Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for KSRTC and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The allegation of the appellants is that on MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..4.. 02.01.2008 at about 8.50 p.m., while one Sudheesh was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-7BD 6324, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL15/6675(R.R.M.489) driven by the first respondent negligently and hit on the motorcycle in which Sudheesh was riding. He sustained serious injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries. The appellants, who are the legal representatives and dependants of the above Sudheesh, lodged claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation from Respondents 1 to 3. 4. R2 filed written statement denying all the averments stated in the petition and pointed out valid policy issued by the 3[rd] Respondent. 5. The Tribunal went on trial. PW1 and PW2 examined and Exts.A1 to A11 marked on the side of the appellants. No evidence let in by the respondents. MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..5.. 6. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted Rs.6,57,500/- along with 7.5% interest to the appellants fastening liability upon the insurer. 7. The main challenge, that has been raised while assailing the award, is the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal for assessing loss of dependency. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- per month, though the appellants adduced evidence in the form of Ext.A9 salary certificate showing his income at Rs.10,000/- per month and by examining PW2 who authored Ext.A9. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed salary as canvassed as per Ext.A9 on the ground that the evidence of PW2 is insufficient to act upon Ext.A9 as such. 9. On going through Ext.A9, the same does not show the division of salary under the heads, salary, DA, MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..6.. other allowance etc. and it has been certified therein that a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- was given as salary to the deceased. During cross-examination, PW2 given evidence that the deceased was a plumber and there was no records to show disbursement of salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In this matter, though the appellants claimed that the deceased as a person doing plumbing works, no documents produced to show his educational qualification to do the said job. Thus, it appears that Ext.A9 or the evidence of PW2 could not be given emphasis to fix higher monthly income as claimed in Ext.A9. However, by applying the ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** , the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.7,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2009. Therefore, Rs.7,000/- is fixed as the monthly income. Admittedly, the deceased was aged below 40 years and MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..7.. therefore, 40% addition towards future prospects is liable to given following the ratio in [2017 16 SCC 650], **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.** Therefore, the monthly income for the purpose of assessment of compensation shall be Rs.9,800/(7,000+40%). 10. The Tribunal applied 1/3[rd] deduction. No dispute as regards to the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the appellants highlighted the number of dependents as 4, so as to have the reduction as ¼, the third appellant is none other than the sister of the deceased and the fourth appellant is the daughter of third appellant. In fact, no evidence let in to show that appellants 3 and 4 had been depending upon the deceased and therefore, dependency shall be adjudged insofar as the appellants 1 and 2 are concerned. Thus, appellants 3 and 4 are not entitled for additional MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..8.. compensation also. In view of the matter, 1/3[rd] deduction is applied by the Tribunal is justified. Therefore, the loss of dependency income is re-calculated as under; 9,800x12x16/3x2=12,54,400/- Out of which, Rs.6,00,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Rs.12,54,400-6,00,000= **Rs.6,54,400/-** more is granted under the head loss of dependency income. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants pressed for granting compensation under conventional and traditional heads following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case. Therefore, **Rs.12,000/-** more is granted under the head funeral expenses, after adjusting Rs.3,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal granted only Rs.10,000/-. In this case, appellants 1 and 2 are together entitled to get Rs.80,000/- as consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, **Rs.70,000/-** more is granted under the head loss of consortium. MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..9.. 12. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurer that Rs.15,000/- granted under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/- granted under the head loss of love and affection are liable to be reduced following the ratio in [AIR 2020 SC 3076], **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur.** This submission appears to be correct. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- stands disallowed. 13. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal not considered medical bills to the tune of Rs.13,236/- produced by the appellants towards medical expenses incurred immediately after the accident, while treating the Sudheesh. On perusal of the award, the Tribunal ignored the medical bills and granted only Rs.1,000/- under the head. On perusal of the Ext.A8, I could find that the claim raised therein is legally sustainable and therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in not considering the same and therefore, **Rs.12,240/-** more is MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..10.. granted under the head medical expenses. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.7,23,640/(Rupees Seven lakh Twenty Three Thousand Six hundred and Forty only) at the rate of 7.5% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. It is noticed that for the payment of court fee, Rs.12,00,000/- alone was valued by the appellants and the appellants 1 and 2 are liable to pay additional court fee for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,81,140/-. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.1,820/- in addition to the court fee already ordered by the Tribunal by separate cheque in the name of M.A.C.T. The insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount in the name of the appellants 1 and 2 in the equal MACA No.2000 of 2012 ..11.. proportion within two months from today and on deposit, the appellants 1 and 2 are at liberty to release the same. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj