High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2016-02-18The appeal stands allowed to the extent describ...

Raghutty and others v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 568 of 2009

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2016-02-18
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. The High Court re‑computed the compensation, realized as ₹4,08,980 after including enhanced funeral expenses and loss of love and affection, and held the The National Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for the principal amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition until realisation, with delay excluded as per the common order. The insurer is directed to deposit the due amount before the Tribunal within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. No costs.
Final Disposition: The appeal stands allowed to the extent described in the judgment. No cost.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raghutty
Madhavi
Shima
Shija

Respondents

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Zubair Pulikkool

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Lal George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a MACT award in OPMV 578/2003 concerning a road traffic death on 07-01-2003. The appellants, as legal heirs of the deceased, challenge the tribunal’s quantum and the negligence finding. The tribunal held the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded ₹2,85,717 across heads including medical, transportation, funeral expenses, and non-pecuniary damages, with interest at 7.5%. The Insurance Company contested the quantum and the negligence assessment. The deceased, a 28-year-old bachelor, was employed as a bill collector with a certified salary of ₹5,290 per month; the tribunal adopted only ₹1,860 as monthly income after deductions, ignoring other certified allowances. The appellants argued that the income should be ₹6,000 per month for calculation, and since the deceased contributed 50% to the family while living as a bachelor, the dependency calculation and multiplier should reflect the deceased’s age rather than the mother’s. They pressed for higher compensation under loss of dependency, love and affection, and funeral expenses, citing Rajesh v. Rajbirsingh (2013) and the later Valsamma v. Binu Jose (2014) to justify enhanced non‑pecuniary damages. The High Court re‑computes income at ₹6,000, applies 50% contribution, and, after adjusting heads, increases the base balance and adds funeral and love/affection enhancements, resulting in a total of ₹4,08,980. It also directs the insurer to pay principal with 9% interest from the petition date, excluding the delay period, and deposit within one month. The appeal is allowed to the stated extent, with no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income and the dependency. Ext. A10 (certificate) and Ext. A12 (wage register) show certified salary of ₹5,290 per month; the Tribunal treated it as ₹1,860 after deductions, ignoring other certified allowances. They argued for ₹6,000 monthly income in calculations and that a 50% contribution should be considered as the deceased’s family support since he was a bachelor. They urged applying the multiplier based on the deceased’s age rather than the mother’s age. They pressed for higher awards under loss of dependency, love and affection, and funeral expenses, citing Rajesh v. Rajbirsingh (2013) for higher funeral and love-portion awards and Valsamma v. Binu Jose (2014) for non‑pecuniary damages. They requested 9% interest from petition date to realisation and exclusion of delay period per interim orders. They also argued for considering the policy amount in the assessment.

Contentions of Respondents

The Insurance Company argued that the tribunal’s quantum and the negligence finding required scrutiny; the income, deductions, and allowances were not properly applied, and the dependency calculation and multiplier selection lacked proper grounding. It contended that the assessment of non‑pecuniary damages should follow established precedents and that the tribunal’s approach was not fully in line with jurisprudence. Overall, it urged that the tribunal’s award be maintained or reduced, and emphasized that the claim should be resolved within the policy framework; it also noted the necessity to honour any interim orders with appropriate limits on interest during delay.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Rajbirsingh	2013 (3) KLT 89	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate potential higher funeral and love/affection awards but not adopted in exact figures.
Valsamma v. Binu Jose	2014 (1) KLT 10	Positive	Cited to support the approach of fixing non-pecuniary damages with reference to the deceased’s age and family circumstances, influencing the final 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 Raghutty and others v. The National 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937 MACA.No. 568 of 2009 () -----------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 578/2003 of MACT, ERNAKULAM DATED 26-10-2007 ## APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RAGHUTTY, S/O.KANARAN, HOUSE NO.55, THOTTATHUM THAZHAKUNNIYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA ONCHIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MADHAVI, W/O.RAGHUTTY, HOUSE NO.55, THOTTATHUM THAZHAKUNNIYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA ONCHIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SHIMA, D/O.RAGHUTTY, HOUSE NO.55, THOTTATHUM THAZHAKUNNIYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA ONCHIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. SHIJA, D/O.RAGHUTTY, HOUSE NO.55, THOTTATHUM THAZHAKUNNIYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA ONCHIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. T.M.RAHIM, THACHAVATTATH HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKAA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRADEEP, S/O.GOPALAN, AIKKARAPPARA - HOUSE, SREEMOOLAMANGALAM P.O., THEKKUMBHAGAM CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. * R1 & R2 ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DT.29.07.16 IN I.A.215/16. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DHAMODAR CHAMBERS, STATUE JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHURA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.** ## **--------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2016.** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of death, pursuant to the road traffic accident occurred on 07.01.2003. 2. The factual position revealed from the proceedings is that the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing No.KL-7/AF 6495 and while so, when he reached the place of occurrence, he was knocked down by the bus bearing No.KL-7/AD 2502, causing serious injuries leading to his death, which led to the claim petition filed by his legal heirs before the Tribunal, seeking to compensate the loss. 3. The matter was contested mainly by the 3[rd] respondent. The nature of contention raised by the respondent Insurance Company was mainly on quantum/negligence. 4. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of A1 to A13 exhibits and a deposition given by the witness who was examined as PW1. 5. Based on the relevant materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was occurred solely because of the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent and proceeded to M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 2 fix the compensation accordingly. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, the case projected by the claimants before the Tribunal is that, the deceased was employed as Bill Collector in Sree Gokulam Chitt and Finance with a monthly income of ₹5,900/-. Referring to serious consequences resulted because of the death, a total sum of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed accordingly. But the Tribunal observed that, after deducting other allowances except DA and personal expenses of the deceased, only 1,860/- was reckoned as monthly₹ income for working out the loss of dependency. Awarding amounts under different heads, total compensation was fixed as 2,85,717/-,₹ which was directed to be satisfied with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The liability was accordingly mulcted upon the shoulders of the 3[rd] respondent, correctness of which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company. 8. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as given in paragraph 6 are as follows : Heads ## Amount awarded Medical expenses (supported by bills) Transportation (supported by bill) Rs. 7,407.00 Rs. 5,290.00 3 M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 |Funeral expenses Shock, pain and sufferings Loss of dependency Loss of love and affection Loss of estate Total|Rs. 2,500.00 Rs. 10,000.00 Rs.2,45,520.00 Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 10,000.00 ----------------------- Rs. 2,85,717.00| |---|---| 9. Coming to the actual extent of compensation payable, the grievance of the appellants as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the deceased was an able-bodied youth of 28 years, working as Bill Collector in a private establishment with a certified salary of 5,290/-. This was sought to be substantiated by₹ producing Ext.A10 certificate and Ext.A12 register of wages, supported by the oral testimony of PW1. Though the amounts paid to the deceased under different heads were referred to by the Tribunal, only the basic salary and DA were reckoned, ignoring the rest and reckoning the income as 1860/- after deducting the₹ probable amount towards personal expenses. Similarly, the multiplier fixed based on the age of the mother is quite on lower side and as per the law declared by the Apex Court on the point, it has to be with reference to the age of the deceased, which hence had to 17. It is also pointed out that, the amounts awarded under other heads are also much on the lower side. 10. After hearing both the sides, we find that there was M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 4 absolutely no reason for the Tribunal to have ignored different allowances which were also certified in the salary certificate and proved as per the wage register produced on the part of the claimants. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the monthly income of the deceased has to be reckoned as 5,900/-₹ itself (however for convenience of calculation, we accept the same as 6,000/-) and the calculation has to be made accordingly. The₹ deceased was a bachelor at the relevant time and as such, 50% of the income alone can be reckoned as contribution to the family. Thus, on re-working the compensation, the amount comes to ₹3,06,000/- (₹3,000x12x17x50/100). After deducting the sum of ₹2,45,520/- awarded by the Tribunal, the balance payable comes to **₹ 60,480/-** . 12. It is seen that only a sum of 2,500/- has been awarded₹ by the Tribunal towards the funeral expenses. The learned counsel seeks to place reliance on the decision reported by the honourable Supreme Court in _**Rajesh v. Rajbirsingh [2013 (3) KLT 89]**_ wherein the compensation for funeral expenses has been awarded to the tune of 25,000/- besides the compensation towards love and₹ affection to the tune of 1,00,000/-. But the accident in the said₹ case was in the year 2007, whereas in the instant case, it was in January 2003. Striking a balance, we find it appropriate to award a M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 5 further sum of **₹ 7,500/** - towards the funeral expenses. The compensation towards love and affection under such circumstances came to be considered by a subsequent Division Bench of this Court and as per the decision reported in _**Valsamma v. Binu Jose [2014 (1) KLT 10]**_ it has been observed (with reference to the law declared by the Apex Court cited supra) that, compensation under the head loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, etc. have to be fixed, also with reference to the age of the deceased/claimants. In the said circumstances, the compensation payable under the head love and affection is fixed as 50,000/- and after deducting the₹ sum of 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the balance comes to₹ **₹ 45,000/-** . Thus, the total balance compensation payable would come to **₹ 1,12,980/-** (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand nine hundred and eighty only), which requires to be satisfied by the respondent Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 13. However, we find that the appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 264 days. The said delay was condoned as per common order dated 29.01.2016, making it clear that if the appellants succeed in getting enhancement of the compensation, they will not be entitled to get the interest for the period covered by delay. In the above circumstances, the said interim order is made absolute and it is made clear that the liability of the Insurance M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 6 Company will stand confined to satisfaction of principal amount with interest from the date of petition, except for the period covered by delay. Since the policy is admitted, the respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the due amount before the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. No cost. Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** AV /True Copy/ P.A to Judge The following corrections are made in the judgment dated 18.2.2016 in M.A.C.A.No.568/2009: The figure “₹ 3,06,000/- (₹ 3,000 x 12 x 17 x 50/100)” occurring in the 8[th] line of 11[th] paragraph of the judgment is corrected and substituted as “₹ 6,12,000/- (₹ 6,000 x 12 x 17 x 7 M.A.C.A.No.568 of 2009 50/100)”. The figure “₹ 60,480/-” occurring in the 10 th line of 11th paragraph of the judgment is corrected and substituted as “ 3,66,480/-”.₹ The figure and words “₹1,12,980/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand nine hundred and eighty only)” shown as total balance compensation payable occurring in the last portion of the 12[th] paragraph of the judgment are corrected and substituted as “₹ 4,08,980/- (Rupees Four lakhs eight thousand nine hundred and eighty only)”. Vide order dated 6/4/2016 in I.A.No.1163/2016 in M.A.C.A.No.568/2009. Sd/Registrar (Judicial)