High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-30The appeal and Cross Objection are allowed in p...

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. Lalitha and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-05-30
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal and Cross Objection are allowed in part. Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,03,880 to be deposited with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit before the MACT, Thalassery, within two months. The Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the cross objectors/claimants in the ratio 60:10:10:10:10 after deducting liabilities (tax, court fee, etc.). The order directs the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount and confirms the partial enhancement of compensation.
Final Disposition: The appeal and Cross Objection are allowed in part to the extent as above. No order as to costs. The enhanced compensation amount is to be deposited within two months and distributed among the claimants as directed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondents

N. Lalitha
Praseetha N.
Mini N.
Lathika N.
Ranjith Kumar N.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri George Cherian (Sr.)
• Smt. Latha Susan Cherian
• Smt. K.S. Santhi

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. K.K. Chandralekha
• Sri K.C. Santhoshkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 30 May 2024, the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, Hon. Justice Sophy Thomas) decided MACA 3471 of 2016 and Cross Objection 49/2018 arising from OP(MV) 554/2012. The insurer Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. appeals against the MACT award of Rs.14,63,800, contending it is excessive, while the claimants cross-objected that the amount was too low. The accident occurred on 12.11.2011; Thamban died on 03.06.2012 after injuries sustained when knocked down by a mini lorry KL-13E/7867. The Tribunal fixed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.13,795 (pension Rs.7,595 plus Rs.6,200 from the security job) and, applying the 50% deduction for personal expenses per Sarla Verma, computed dependency at Rs.6,898/month. With a 5-year multiplier (age 72), the loss of dependency was Rs.4,13,880. After deducting Rs.2,40,000 already awarded, enhanced dependency became Rs.1,73,880. The insurer argued for further reductions under Pranay Sethi’s framework, including capping funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs.15,000 each, and reducing loss of love and affection and loss of consortium from the Tribunal’s figures. The High Court, applying these precedents, ordered enhanced compensation of Rs.1,03,880, to be deposited within two months, with distribution among the five claimants in the ratio 60:10:10:10:10; the appeal and cross objection are allowed in part, with no costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)) — 50% deduction towards personal expenses; multiplier based on age.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] — caps on funeral expenses and loss of estate; guidelines on heads of compensation under Pranay Sethi.
Pranay Sethi (principles) — framing of dependency and head-wise compensation (loss of love and affection, loss of consortium) and distribution in several heads.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contends that the Tribunal wrongly deducted only 1/3 of the deceased's income for personal expenses instead of 50%, and that the notional income used by the Tribunal (Rs. 6,000) is too low against the actual total income (Rs. 13,795). It also seeks to apply Pranay Sethi guidelines to cap funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs. 15,000 each and to adjust heads of compensation (notably loss of love and affection and loss of consortium) to reflect reduced sums. The insurer asserts the dependency calculation should be more favorable to the insurer if the deduction is 50% and notional income is appropriately fixed, which would lower the enhanced award.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants argue the Tribunal correctly considered the deceased’s total income (Rs.13,795) and applied a 50% deduction for personal expenses, with a 5-year multiplier (age 72). They seek appropriate enhancement of compensation under all heads, including loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, and loss of consortium, consistent with Pranay Sethi guidelines. They contend Pranay Sethi’s framework supports higher awards and that the original sums under various heads were not excessive.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify 50% deduction for personal expenses in calculating loss of dependency.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	[(2017) 16 SCC 680]	Positive	Applied for capping funeral expenses and loss of estate under the Pranay Sethi framework.

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. N. Lalitha 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946 MACA NO. 3471 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINSTTHEAWARDDATED23.03.2016INOPMVNO.554OF2012OF MOTORACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,THALASSERY ``` ## **`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` RELIANCEGENERALINSURANCECO.LTD KANNUR,REPRESENTEDBYITSDEPUTY MANAGER,REGIONALOFFICE,ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.GEORGECHERIAN(SR.) SMT.LATHASUSANCHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:`** - **`1 N.LALITHA`** ``` D/O.RAGAVANNAIR,NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` 2PRASEETHAN. D/O.THAMBAN(LATE),NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` - **`3 MINI N.`** ``` D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),NAMBRADATH HOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` - **`4 LATHIKA N.`** ``` D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` 5RANJITHKUMARN. ``` ``` S/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 2 ``` BYADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR ``` ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY HEARDON30.05.2024,ALONGWITHCO.49/2018,THECOURTONTHE SAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 3 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS THURSDAY,THE30[TH]DAYOFMAY2024/9THJYAISHTA,1946 CONO.49OF2018 ``` ``` AGAINSTTHEAWARDDATED23.03.2016INOP(MV)554/2012OFMOTOR ACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,THALASSERY ``` ``` CROSSOBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS: ``` **`1. N.LALITHA`** ``` D/O.RAGAVANNAIR,AGED67,NAMBRADATH HOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIA MOTTAMMAL,KANNUR-670331. ``` **`2. PRASEETHA N., D/O. THAMBAN (LATE), AGED`** ``` 48,NAMBRADATHHOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` **`3. MINI N.`** ``` D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),AGED45, NAMBRADATHHOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA,VIA MOTTAMMAL,KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` 4.LATHIKAN. D/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),AGED42, NAMBRADATHHOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, VIAMOTTAMMAL, KANNUR-670331. ``` **`5. RANJITH KUMAR N.`** ``` S/O.THAMBRAN(LATE),AGED39, NAMBRADATHHOUSE,P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, VIAMOTTAMMAL,KANNUR-670331. ``` ``` BYADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR ``` ``` RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ``` ``` RELIANCEGENERALINSURANCECO.LTD,KANNUR, REPRESENTEDBYITSDEPUTYMANAGER, REGIONALOFFICE,ERNAKULAM-682011. ``` ``` BYADVSRI.GEORGECHERIAN(SR) SMT.K.S.SANTHI ``` ``` THISCROSSOBJECTION/CROSSAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON30.05.2024,ALONGWITHMACA.3471/2016,THECOURTON THESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 4 ## **J U D G M E N T** The appeal is at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent/insurer and the Cross Objection is at the instance of the claimants in OP(MV) No.554 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. According to the appellant, the compensation awarded is excessive in nature, and according to the cross objectors, it is on the lower side. 2. On 12.11.2011 at about 10.15 p.m, Mr.K.V. Thamban, the husband of the 1[st] cross objector/1[st] claimant, and father of cross objectors 2 to 5/claimants 2 to 5, met with a road traffic accident and he succumbed to the injuries on 03.06.2012. While he was walking through Pappinissery N.H road, he was knocked down by KL-13E/7867 mini lorry driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He was rushed to AKG Hospital, Kannur and from there he was referred to Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, where he was admitted and treated for four days. Thereafter he was taken to Unity Health Complex, Mangalore for better treatment and he was an inpatient there for 34 days. Again he was taken to Koyili Hospital, Kannur and treated there as an inpatient for 55 days, and on 03.06.2012, he breathed his last. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.18 lakh. But, MACA No.3471 of 2016 & 5 Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.14,63,800/-. 3. Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/insurer would contend that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and hence they preferred MACA No.3471 of 2016. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence they preferred Cross Objection No.49 of 2018. 4. The death of Mr.K.V Thamban in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.11.2011 and the insurance policy of the offending mini lorry are not under dispute. 5. Now this Court is called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned Award warranting interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the cross objectors. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that, though the learned Tribunal found the wife of the deceased alone as the dependent of the deceased, instead of deducting 50% towards personal expenses, 1/3[rd] was deducted and it is erroneous. Whereas learned counsel for the cross objectors would submit that, the deceased was an ex serviceman working as a Security Guard and he was having total monthly income of Rs.13,795/- including MACA No.3471 of 2016 & 6 Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 his monthly pension of Rs.7,595/-. But, learned Tribunal fixed a meager income of Rs.6,000/- only as his notional income, and that has to be interfered with. 8. Exts.A12 and A13 are the extract of Pension Pass Book and Pension Register of the deceased. The pension amount received by the deceased as Rs.7,595/- per month is not disputed. Regarding his monthly income from his security job, Ext.A11 certificate was produced which will show that his monthly income was Rs.6,200/-. So, his total monthly income has to be taken as Rs.13,795/-. Since his wife alone was dependent on him, based on the decision **Sarla Verma** _vs._ **Delhi Transport Corporation** [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], 50% is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the balance income is Rs.6,898/-. The multiplier applicable is 5 as he was aged 72. So, the compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.4,13,880/(6898x12x5). After deducting Rs.2,40,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the cross objectors are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.1,73,880/- as enhanced compensation under the head loss of dependency. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- each under the MACA No.3471 of 2016 & 7 Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 head funeral expenses and loss of estate. Based on the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , the cross objectors were eligible to be granted only Rs.15,000/- each. So, Rs.10,000/- each is to be deducted from funeral expenses and loss of estate, awarded by the Tribunal, which comes to Rs.20,000/- in total. 10. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2 lakh towards loss of love and affection and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium. Based on _Pranay Sethi’s_ case cited supra, cross objectors, who are the wife and children of the deceased, are entitled to get Rs.40,000/each under the head loss of consortium which will come to Rs.2 lakh in total. So, Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in excess of what was eligible by the cross objectors is liable to be deducted. 11. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and it need not be interfered with. |**Head of claim** **(1)**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the Tribunal** **(2)**|**Amount** **awarded in** **appeal** **(3)**|**Amount** **deducted in** **appeal** **(4)**|**Difference to be** **drawn as** **enhanced** **compensation** **(5)**| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|Rs.2,40,000/-|Rs.4,13,880/-|-|Rs.1,73,880/-| |Funeral expenses/ loss of estate|Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-|Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-|Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-|-| MACA No.3471 of 2016 & Cross Objection No.49 of 2018 8 |Loss of love and affection/ Loss of consortium|Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-|Rs.2,00,000/-|Rs.50,000/-|-| |---|---|---|---|---| |**Total**|||**Rs.70,000/-**|**Rs.1,73,880/-**| |**Enhancement after adjusting excess payment: (173880-70000)=Rs.1,03,880/-**||||| 12. In the result, the cross objectors are entitled to get Rs.1,03,880/- towards enhanced compensation. The appellant/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,03,880/(Rupees One lakh three thousand eight hundred and eighty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the cross objectors/claimants in the ratio 60:10:10:10:10 after deducting their liabilities, if any, towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal and Cross Objection are allowed in part to the extent as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** smp