High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-12-18Appeal and Cross Objection disposed; enhanced c...

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ian Rojan (Minor) through Guardian Annamma

Case / Petition Number:MACA.2042/2015; CO.176/2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2019-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed of. The Court modified the Tribunal award by (i) fixing income at Rs.18,000; (ii) treating the job as permanent with 50% future prospects; (iii) eliminating Rs.1,00,000 for loss of love and affection; (iv) awarding Rs.10,000 for pain and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses; (v) calculating loss of dependency as Rs.34,56,000 and granting an additional Rs.7,83,000 as enhanced compensation. The insurer is directed to deposit the balance amount within two months along with interest already awarded by the Tribunal; in case of default, interest at 12% will apply.
Final Disposition: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed; enhanced compensation granted; award modified accordingly; insurer directed to deposit balance within two months with interest; 12% interest on default.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ian Rojan (minor) through guardian Annamma

Respondents

Ian Rojan (minor) through guardian Annamma
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Cochin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri George Cherian
• Sri Latha Susan Cherian
• Sri K.S. Santhi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Domson J. Vatta Kuzhy
• Sri Mathew John K
• Sri K.S. Santhi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with MACA.2042/2015 (appeal) and CO.176/2015 (cross appeal) arising from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in an early 2007 car accident tragedy that left Rani Priya George deceased and her minor son, Rojan, as a claimant through guardian Annamma. The Tribunal had accepted the insurer’s policy and awarded compensation across heads including loss of dependency, transport, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of love and affection, while reducing the deceased’s income to Rs.14,000. The insurer argued, following Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, that compensation for love and affection should be struck off and future prospects reduced from 50% to 40% given the non-permanent nature of the job; the claimant’s side argued Ext. A9 proves a salary of Rs.18,750 and urged higher income and 50% future prospects, supported by evidence of long tenure. The High Court, upon review, held the income at Rs.18,000 and found the job permanent, thus retaining 50% future prospects. It struck off Rs.1,00,000 for love and affection, increased the dependency calculation to Rs.34,56,000, and granted an additional Rs.7,83,000 for enhanced compensation, including Rs.10,000 for pain and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses (revised from Rs.25,000). An insurer-deposited enhanced amount is to be paid within two months with existing interest; default attracts 12% interest. The appeal and cross-appeal are disposed of accordingly, with the insurer directed to deposit balance funds.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

1/3 deduction for personal living expenses (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121)
Future prospects principle (Pranay Sethi, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680)
Multiplier/age-based calculation for dependency (SCC principles)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contended that Pranay Sethi requires striking off Rs.1,00,000 awarded for loss of love and affection and a reduction of future prospects from 50% to 40%, arguing that the deceased’s job was not permanent and that the claimed income needed corroboration. It urged applying the 40% future-prospects rule and a lower income figure, maintaining the Tribunal’s approach as per older precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimant’s side argued Ext.A9 proves a salary of Rs.18,750 and that the deceased had a long, continuous tenure, constituting a permanent job; thus 50% future prospects should be allowed, and the income should be considered higher than Tribunal’s Rs.14,000. They pressed for compensation on the higher income basis and retained awards for other heads, while challenging the insurer’s deductions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Distinguished	Court refers to Pranay Sethi to challenge application of the 50% to 40% future-prospects rule, ultimately choosing to apply 50% due to the permanent nature of the job, thus distinguishing the Pranay Sethi guideline on this factual basis.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	—	Mentioned Only	Cited in the Tribunal’s formula for computation but not explicitly adopted or discussed in the High Court’s reasoning.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Principle of 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses applied in the dependency calculation; court uses this doctrine in the computation.

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 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ian Rojan (Minor) through Guardian Annamma 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 AMIT RAWAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.2042 OF 2015** **APPEAL AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV)No.35/2013 DATED 17-03-2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT:** **RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI** ## **RESPONDENT:** **IAN ROJAN** **(DOB: 1.1.2008)(MINOR), W 92 FEDRAL PARK, VENNALA, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN ANNAMMA, W/O. MATHEW, ANANTHAKATTU HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDY P.O., KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 515.** **BY ADVS. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY SRI.MATHEW JOHN K** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2019, ALONG WITH CO.176/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **CO.No.176 OF 2015 IN MACA. 2042/2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 2042/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER:** **IAN ROJAN [MINOR] W 92 FEDRAL PARK, VENNALA, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, ANNAMMA W/O MATHEW, ANANTHAKATTU HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDY POST, KATTAPPANA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY** ## **RESPONDENT:** **RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.** **BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.2042/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, dated 17.03.2015, seeking reduction of the compensation and Cross Objection No.176 of 2015 on behalf of the legal representative of the claimant for enhancement. 2. As per the facts culled out, the pleading as well as the award, on 07.05.2007 at about 12 a.m., Rani Priya George, along with her husband Rojan was travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL-42/D-4267 from Nedumbassery-Moolamattom road and when reached near Kudayathoor, the first respondent, driver of the car lost his control and as a result, the car overturned causing severe head injury to the deceased and other passengers of the car. 3. Before the Tribunal, 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents remained absent and they were set ex-parte. Whereas the 3[rd] respondent insurance entered and filed written company appearance **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **4** statement admitting the insurance policy. The age, income and various amounts of compensation claimed were disputed by the insurance company. According to the 3[rd] respondent the petition is filed in collusion with the owner and driver of the vehicle and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, in support of his claim, brought on record Exts.A1 to A10 Copy of FIR in Cr. No.24/11 of Kanjar Police Station, Copy of FIS in Cr.No.241/11 of Kanjar Police Station, Copy of Scene Mahazar of Kanjar Police Station, Copy of Post-mortem certificate issued by Dr.C.V. Jacob, THQ, Thodupuzha, copy of Inspection report of motor vehicle involved in an accident, Master Degree Certificate issued from M.G. University, Kottayam, Degree of Bachelor of Arts issued from M.G. University, Kottayam, Certificate of State Eligibility Test issued from Directorate of Higher Secondary Education, Salary certificate issued from Noody Pre-primary School, Thane, Mumbai and Experience Certificate issued from Govt. V.H.S.S., Murikkumvayal, respectively. **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **5** 5. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a teacher in a pre-primary school and drawing a salary of Rs.18,750/-. The Tribunal assessed the income as Rs.14,000/- and awarded the compensation under various heads as under: |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount Claimed (in Rupees)|Amount Awarded (in Rupees)|Basis-vital details in a nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|15,00,000/-|(13,44,000/-) `26,88,000/-|(14,000/- +50%) x 12)- 1/3 x 16) Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, and Sarla Varma's case| |2|Transportation expense|5,000/-|15,000/-|Reasonable estimate| |3|Funeral expenses|50,000/-|25,000/-|Rajesh Vs. Rajbir singth| |4|Pain and suffering|25,000/-|Not allowed|| |5|Loss of love and affection|1,00,000/-|1,00,000/-|Rajesh Vs.Rajbir Singh (there is no other claimants)| |6|Total|Limited to `15 lakhs|(`14,84,000/- `28,28,000/-|(`14,84,000/-) `28,28,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 17.1.2013 till realisation| **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **6** 6. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the compensation granted by the Tribunal on account of loss of love and affection of Rs.1,00,000/- is liable to be scored off and future prospects from 50% to 40% should be taken. The income of Rs.18,000/- as claimed, has not been proved in accordance with law and her job is not of a permanent nature. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the claimant/respondent and appellant in the Cross Objection submits that the salary certificate Ext.A9 has been proved on record without any demur. Thus, the insurance company cannot be permitted to take objection qua its mode of proof in the absence of examination of the Principal of the pre-primary school. The deceased was drawing an income of Rs.18,750/- with effect from 01.01.2011 and had been working as a teacher with effect from 05.06.2005 till May, 2011, when she **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **7** unfortunately left this world. The certificates brought on record reflect her educational qualifications for discharging better duties than the one she was performing. The Tribunal should have taken the income of Rs.18,750/- It was a kind of permanent job as she has been working since the year 2005 and therefore, future prospects to the extent of 50% is fair and justified. No compensation for loss of estate has been granted by the Tribunal, but there was no dispute regarding the grant of reduction in the funeral expenses. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and appraised the paper books and records of the case and am of the view that it is fit case where the award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified. From the records, it would reveal that Ext.A9 was not objected. There is no rationality in the reasoning in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/-. I take the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-. The multiplier would be 16 keeping in mind her age as 34 years at the time of the accident. The claimant is a minor child. No doubt compensation **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **8** of Rs.1,00,000/- has been accorded on the head loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation under the aforementioned head is modified to the extent that the funeral expenses will be considered as Rs.15,000/-, thereby a reduction of **Rs.10,000/-** . There shall be no compensation under the head loss of love and affection. On account of pain and sufferings I grant **Rs.10,000/-** . By taking the income as Rs.18,000/- future prospects would be 50% and not 40% as assessed by the counsel for the insurance company. Ext.A9 certificate reveals that she had been in a continuous job since the year 2005. It was more than 7 years and therefore can be calculated as a permanent job. Accordingly, the compensation on account of loss of dependency would be [(18,000 + (18,000 x 15/100) -1/3 x 16)] by applying the dependency as 1/3 reduction of Rs.17,28,000/-, the compensation will be Rs.34,56,000/- instead of Rs.26,88,000/-. Thus, there shall be an increase of **Rs.7,68,000** /-. Towards pain and sufferings an amount of **Rs.10,000** /- is granted additionally. Towards loss of **MACA.2042/2015 & CO.176/2015** **9** estate **Rs.15,000/-** is granted. Amount under the head funeral expenses is reduced by Rs.10,000/-. Thus the total additional compensation of Rs.7,83,000/- is granted to the appellant/ claimant. With the aforementioned modifications, both the appeal and cross objection stand disposed of. The insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount and as far as the enhanced compensation, within a period of two months along with interest as already awarded by the Tribunal. In case of default, the amount will entail 12% interest. ## **Sd/-** ## **AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE** Skk//191219