High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-01Appeal allowed; award revised to grant an addit...

Ramlath Tharayil Padettathil and Others v. Reji K. Sathyan Biji Bhavanam and Arun Peeceveen House, Parassala, and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1114 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date: 2023-12-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The award dated 20.10.2015 is modified: the appellants will receive an additional compensation of Rs. 4,45,200/-, to be deposited by the insurer along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award revised to grant an additional Rs. 4,45,200, to be deposited within three months with interest and costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAMLATH THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL
SHAMSUDHEEN THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL
FAVAS (MINOR) THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL
RAYAS (MINOR) THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL
FOUSIN (MINOR) THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL

Respondents

REJI K.SATHYAN BIJI BHAVANAM (NEAR CITU OFFICE), CHANNANKOTTY, PARASALA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121
ARUN PEECEVEEN HOUSE PARASSALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 502
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM 690 502

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award granting compensation to the appellants for the death of Faizal in a road accident on 29.04.2007. The Tribunal held the first respondent negligent and the insurer liable, quantifying compensation at Rs. 6,12,000 with 9% interest and costs. On appeal, the Kerala High Court reassesses the quantum, especially under the head of loss of dependency. The court accepts the appellants’ claim that the deceased’s monthly income should be Rs. 6,000, using Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq as guiding principles to fix income for an ordinary worker; it also applies 40% as the proper addition for future prospects per Pranay Sethi, instead of 50%. The court determines the multiplier by age category, noting the deceased was born on 31.10.1981 and died at 25, thus not yet 26 at the time of the accident, aligning with Meera P.O. v. Ananda P. Naik and Sarla Verma’s framework, leading to a multiplier of 18. It also allows parents’ loss of consortium and awards for loss of estate, adjusting funeral expenses and loss of love/affection per Magma and Satinder Kaur. The appeal is allowed and Rs. 4,45,200 more is awarded as additional compensation, with deposit within three months along with interest and costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi)
Multiplier rules and age-based categorisation (Sarla Verma; Meera P.O v. Ananda P Naik)
Loss of dependency calculation framework (Ramachandrappa v. Manager; Syed Sadiq & Ors.)
Loss of consortium and loss of love/affection jurisprudence (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur)
Funeral expenses and proportionality principles (Pranay Sethi; Satwinder Kaur)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased’s income should be fixed at Rs.6,000 per month, adopting the baseline for an ordinary worker and applying the established escalation to determine what the earnings would have been in 2007. They challenged the Tribunal’s deduction for future prospects and income as Rs.4,000; they relied on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify a higher income and argued for appropriate multiplier considering age at death. They urged inclusion of loss of estate and consortium, and argued for Rs.40,000 each for loss of consortium, while objecting to excessive compensation for love and affection and funeral expenses in light of Pranay Sethi and Satwinder Kaur. They also highlighted that the deceased was aged 25, not yet 26, thus supporting an 18 multiplier (per Sarla Verma and Meera P.O).

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer urged reduction of the Tribunal’s 50% addition for future prospects to 40% per Pranay Sethi, and argued for a lower multiplier based on the age of the deceased. They contested the extraction of Rs.6,000 as monthly income and pressed that the tribunal’s awards for love/affection and funeral expenses were excessive; they supported limiting the aggregate head of compensation as per the Magma and Satinder Kaur rulings, and argued that loss of consortium should be restricted in line with Supreme Court precedents. They likewise contended adoption of a multiplier that aligns with the deceased’s age, and questioned the inclusion of certain heads as independent compensable losses.

Cited Precedents (8)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited as authority for fixing the monthly income baseline for an ordinary worker.
Syed Sadiq & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited alongside Ramachandrappa to validate income computation methods.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Used to fix the proper 40% addition for future prospects.
Meera P.O. v. Ananda P. Naik	(2022) 1 KLT 673	Positive	Used to determine age-based multiplier sections (21-26) before applying 18 as multiplier.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2010) 2 KLT 802	Positive	Basis for category 21-26 and multiplier rules applied by the court.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others	(2018) 3 KLT Online 3095 (SC)	Positive	Informing loss of consortium and related awards.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur	(2021) 11 SCC 780	Positive	Guides the treatment of loss of love/affection and loss of consortium.
Pranay Sethi	(supra)	Positive	Used for proper funeral expenses and foundational principles of compensation.

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 Ramlath Tharayil Padettathil and Others v. Reji K. Sathyan Biji Bhavanam and Arun Peeceveen House, Parassala, and The 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** ## **MACA NO. 1114 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.10.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.1077/2007 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-II, MAVELIKKARA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 RAMLATH THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL, (KOTTOOR KIZHAKKATHU), PATHIYOOR WEST, KAREELAKULANGARA. 2 SHAMSUDHEEN THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL, (KOTTOOR KIZHAKKATHU), PATHIYOOR WEST, KAREELAKULANGARA. 3 FAVAS (MINOR) THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL, (KOTTOOR KIZHAKKATHU), PATHIYOOR WEST, KAREELAKULANGARA. 4 RAYAS (MINOR) THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL, (KOTTOOR KIZHAKKATHU), PATHIYOOR WEST, KAREELAKULANGARA. 5 FOUSIN (MINOR) THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL, (KOTTOOR KIZHAKKATHU), PATHIYOOR WEST, KAREELAKULANGARA. BY ADV SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 REJI K.SATHYAN BIJI BHAVANAM (NEAR CITU OFFICE), CHANNANKOTTY, PARASALA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121. 2 ARUN PEECEVEEN HOUSE PARASSALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 502. 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM 690 502. BY ADV SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners in O.P(M.V) No. 1077/2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of one 'Faizal' due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 29.04.2007. 2. The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by another vehicle bearing registration No.KL 01 AM 3145 driven by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent owned the said vehicle and it was insured with the 3rd respondent /insurance company. The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident and was working as a salesman with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 3rd respondent/insurance company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle, but they disputed the liability on various grounds. They also disputed the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation. 3 M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A8 are the documentary evidence from the side of the appellants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.6,12,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent-insurance company with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. This appeal is submitted by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation in such circumstances. 5. Heard Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 6. The only dispute in this case relates to the quantum of compensation awarded, particularly under the head of loss of dependency. It was pointed out that the deceased was 4 M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 working as a salesman with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.4,000/-, which is on the lower side. 7. After perusing the records, I find some force in the contention of the appellants. It is to be noted in this regard that, even as per the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2014 (2) SCC 735],** monthly income of an ordinary worker, in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004 can be fixed as Rs.4500/- even without any evidence. To determine the monthly income for the subsequent years, the usual method is to add Rs.500/- per year. When that method of computation is adopted, monthly income for the year 2007 can be reasonably fixed as Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, I find that the monthly income claimed by the appellants as Rs.6,000/- is a reasonable figure that can be accepted. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the insurance company would point out that the Tribunal made an addition of 5 ## M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 Rs.50% towards future prospects, which is on the higher side. The said contention is to be accepted as the proper addition in the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** is 40%, as the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. 9. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company raised a further contention that the multiplier to be applied is 17, as it is evident from the records that he crossed the age of 25 years.. However, the said contention cannot be accepted in light of the observations made by this Court in **Meera P.O vs. Ananda P Naik [2022 1 KLT 673].** In the light of the observations made by this court in the said decision which were made, after referring to the observations in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi** **Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802],** unless the person concerned crosses the date of birth completing 26 years of age, he has to be included in the category of 21-26 to which the multiplier of 18 could be applicable. In this case, as per Ext A8 extract of the admission register , the date of birth of the deceased was 31.10.1981, whereas the accident occurred on 29.04.2007. This 6 M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 would indicate that, as of the date of the accident, the deceased did not complete the age of 26 years. 10. In such circumstances, while reassessing the compensation with the above-referred criteria, the amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,07,200/[(6,000+40%) x 12 x 18 x1/2]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.4,32,000; thus, the additional amount would come to **Rs.4,75,200/-** . - 11. In addition to the above, a further sum of **Rs.15,000/** awarded under the head of loss of estate. Similarly, it is seen that no amount was awarded towards the loss of consortium. The appellants 1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/each in the light of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others [2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)] and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780].** 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the insurance company would point out that the Tribunal awarded excess 7 M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 compensation under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. The said contention is to be accepted as the same is legally sustainable. As regards the compensation for funeral expenses in the light of **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the proper amount is Rs.15,000/- and therefore, Rs.10,000/- is the excess compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is to be deducted. Similarly, in **Satwinder Kaur's** case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court observed that when compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, no further amount needs to be granted towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, I find that Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection was not at all warranted and therefore, it is set aside. Thus, the total additional compensation receivable by the appellants in this case is determined as Rs.4,45,200/[(4,75,200+15,000+80,000) – (10,000+1,15,000)]. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara in O.P.(M.V) No. 1077/2007 is modified by awarding an additional compensation of Rs.4,45,200/- (Rupees four lakh forty-five thousand and two 8 M.A.C.A No.1114 of 2016 hundred only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent/insurance company along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE** rpk