High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-05-29MACA705 of 2012 partly allowed; enhanced compen...

RAMASAMIYAPILLAI and SANMUGAAMMAL and SARAVANANPERUMAL and PARVATHI v. SIMON T.C. and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Case / Petition Number:M.A.C.A.No.705 of 2012; M.A.C.A.No.183 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-05-29
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, M.A.C.A.No.705 of 2012 is allowed in part, granting the claimants an additional Rs.4,61,900 with 7.5% interest. All other directions in the impugned award, including the insurer’s right to realise compensation from the vehicle owner, stand. M.A.C.A.No.183 of 2012, preferred by the insurer challenging the quantum, is dismissed. The insurer may recover the enhanced amount from the owner as per the clarified order.
Final Disposition: MACA705 of 2012 partly allowed; enhanced compensation Rs. 4,61,900 with interest; MACA183 of 2012 dismissed; insurer allowed to recover enhanced amount from the vehicle owner; other directions preserved.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAMASAMIYAPILLAI
SANMUGAAMMAL
SARAVANANPERUMAL
PARVATHI

Respondents

Simon T.C.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.C.K.Govindan
• Sri.L.P.Aravindakshan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.P.V.Baby
• Smt.M.Hemalatha
• Sri.A.N.Santhosh
• Sri.Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri.P.Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated Motor Accidents Claims Appeal before the Kerala High Court arising from a death claim under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, concerning Meenakshi Sundaram, who died in a motor accident on 27 February 2007 at the age of 25. The deceased was a chef with a claimed monthly income of Rs 4,500. The claimants (parents and two siblings) sought Rs 7,95,000 in compensation; the Tribunal awarded Rs 3,54,820. Both sides challenged the quantum. The High Court re-examines the proper calculation of loss of dependency, considering income evidence, potential for future prospects, and the correct multiplier given the deceased’s age, as well as contributions toward funeral expenses, loss of estate, and love and affection. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, and Pranay Sethi, the court accepts Rs 4,500 as monthly income for the 2007 accident, and holds that 40% future prospects should be added to income, with a multiplier of 18 and a 50% deduction for personal expenses. It also awards additional amounts for other heads, including filial consortium. The final order enhances the claimants’ compensation to Rs 4,61,900 with 7.5% interest; the insurer’s appeal on quantum is partly allowed, and the cross-appeal is dismissed with directions remaining intact; the insurer may recover the enhanced amount from the vehicle owner.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects addition (40%) for dependency in MACT cases based on Pranay Sethi framework
Multiplier method for dependency loss (age-based multiplier, e.g., 18)
Deduction for personal expenses (50%)
Filial consortium principle (parents entitled to compensation; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram)
Heads of compensation: funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of love and affection

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Claimants contended that the deceased’s monthly income should be Rs.4,500 and that the Tribunal erred by not applying future prospects and by misapplying the income for loss of dependency. Relying on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, they urged that 40% future prospects be added, the correct multiplier for a 25-year-old was 18, and a 50% deduction for personal expenses be applied. They also sought enhanced compensation under heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of love and affection, and argued for filial consortium of Rs.40,000 to each parent. They urged total compensation of Rs 4,61,900 with interest and submission for recovery from the vehicle owner.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the Tribunal’s quantum and method of calculation were correct and should be upheld. They argued compliance with established MACT principles, questioned any aggressive enhancement for future prospects, and defended the Tribunal’s treatment of all heads of compensation. They also maintained that the insurer’s cross-appeal seeks only to challenge the quantum but not the computation basis, and that existing directions should continue unless clearly erroneous.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to endorse higher monthly income for the deceased (Rs. 4,500) in a 2007 accident context.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited to support inclusion of future prospects and higher income in appropriate cases.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Adopted framework for 40% addition to income for future prospects in dependency calculations.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others	2018 ACJ 2782	Positive	Applied filial consortium principle, awarding Rs. 40,000 to each parent.

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 RAMASAMIYAPILLAI and SANMUGAAMMAL and SARAVANANPERUMAL and PARVATHI v. SIMON T.C. and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE 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.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **M.A.C.A.No.705 of 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02-06-2011 IN O.P.(MV)NO.1673/2007 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAMASAMIYAPILLAL, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. LATE SARAVANANPILLAI, HOUSE NO.13/50, KEEZHASEKKARAKUDI, SEKKARAKUDI P.O., SREEVAIKUNDAM TALUK, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.** - **2 SANMUGAAMMAL, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. RAMASAMIYAPILLAI, HOUSE NO.13/50, KEEZHASEKKARAKUDI, SEKKARAKUDI P.O., SREEVAIKUNDAM TALUK, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.** - **3 SARAVANANPERUMAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. RAMASWAMIYAPILLAI, HOUSE NO.13/50, KEEZHASEKKARAKUDI, SEKKARAKUDI P.O., SREEVAIKUNDAM TALUK, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.** - **4 PARVATHI, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. RAMASWAMIYAPILLAI, HOUSE NO.13/50, KEEZHASEKKARAKUDI, SEKKARAKUDI P.O., SREEVAIKUNDAM TALUK, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN SRI.L.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:** - **1 SIMON T.C., S/O.CHACKO, ASISH PARAMEL HOUSE, PALLIKURUPPU, MANNARCAUD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. P.B.NO. 43, N.S.TOWERS, STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD, PALAKKAD.** M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -2- **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.05.2019, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.183/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -3- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **M.A.C.A.No. 183 of 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02-06-2011 IN O.P.(MV)NO.1673/2007 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALAKKAD, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD KOCHI-11.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 RAMASAMIYAPILLAI, S/O. LATE SARAVANANPILLAI, HOUSE NO.13/50, KEEZHASEKKARAKUDI, SEKKARAKUDI P.O., SREEVAIKUNDAM TALUK, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-600 004.** **2 SANMUGAAMMAL, W/O. RAMASAMIYAPILLAI, HOUSE NO.13/50, KEEZHASEKKARAKUDI, SEKKARAKUDI P.O., SREEVAIKUNDAM TALUK, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-600 004.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN SRI.L.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.05.2019, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.705/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -4- ## **M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012** ## **------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** Among these appeals, M.A.C.A No.705 of 2012 is by the claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and M.A.C.A No.183 of 2012 is by the insurer in the said proceedings. 2. One Meenakshi Sundaram, died on 28.02.2007 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident took place on 27.02.2007. It is stated that the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident. He was a Chef earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per month. The parents and two siblings of the deceased were the claimants in the proceedings before the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.7,95,000/- was claimed by way of compensation in the proceedings. The Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances, granted a sum of Rs.3,54,820/- to the claimants. As noted, both the insurer as well as the claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Hence, these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned counsel for the insurer as also the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 4. As noted, the case set out by the claimants in M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -5- the claim petition as regards the monthly income of the deceased is that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has computed the compensation for loss of dependency reckoning the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of persons whose income could not be established, at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/in the context of accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, according to me, in so far as the accident in the instant case took place in the year 2007, the Tribunal could have reckoned the monthly income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants at Rs.4,500/-. Further, it is seen that the Tribunal has not added any portion of income towards future prospects while computing the compensation payable for loss of dependency. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], 40% of the income, in the case of persons in the nature of the deceased, should have been M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -6- added to the income towards future prospects while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. The multiplier to be applied in the case of a person aged 25 is '18'. As the deceased was a bachelor, one half of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. If compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency is worked out in this fashion, the same would come to Rs.6,80,400/(Rs.4,500x140/100x12x18x1/2). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.2,83,500/- under the above head, the claimants are entitled to a further compensation of Rs.3,96,900/- under this head. It is seen that only a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been granted towards loss of estate. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2007, the Tribunal could have granted at least Rs.12,500/- each under the above heads. If that be so, the claimants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under these heads. Similarly, under the head 'loss of love and affection', the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.25,000/-. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -7- **Nanu Ram and others** (2018 ACJ 2782), I am of the view that the parents of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.55,000/- by way of compensation under the aforesaid head. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants would work out to be Rs.4,61,900/- . In the result, M.A.C.A.No.705 of 2012 is allowed in part, granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.4,61,900/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award including the direction permitting the insurer to realise the compensation from the owner of the vehicle would stand. In so far as it is found that the claimants are entitled to additional compensation, M.A.C.A.No.183 of 2012 preferred by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is only to be dismissed and I do so. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **JUDGE** vv M.A.C.A.Nos. 705 & 183 of 2012 -8-