High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-27Appeal disposed; total compensation recalculate...

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Sahira and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date: 2022-05-27
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of; the Kerala High Court re-dossed the compensation using Rs.8,000 as notional income, 40% future prospects, and a multiplier of 18, leading to a revised total of Rs.20,25,400. The apppellant insurer is directed to deposit this amount with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization and costs before the Tribunal within two months. Execution of the original award stayed by order dated 01.09.2016 remains in place.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed; total compensation recalculated at Rs.20,25,400; insurer to deposit with 9% interest; stay on execution previously ordered remains in place; costs to be deposited before the Tribunal within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Malappuram, represented by its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam.

Respondents

P. Sahira W/o Aliji P. (late), Pottammal House, Kanhirapparambu, Calicut Airport (PO), Kondotty Amsom, Malappuram District. 673 647.
Pocker Pottammal House, Kanhirapparambu, Calicut Airport (PO), Kondotty Amsom, Malappuram District. 673 647.
Ayamma W/o Pocker, Pottammal House, Kanhirapparambu, Calicut Airport (PO), Kondotty Amsom, Malappuram District. 673 647.
Sawad Ali P S/o Aliji P. (late), Pottammal House, Kanhirapparambu, Calicut Airport (PO), Kondotty Amsom, Malappuram District. Represented by mother guardian 1st respondent.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Jithin Lukose
• P. Samsudin

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the insurer against an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, in O.P.(MV) No. 242/2012, arising from a July 2011 accident in which Aliji P. died after a minibus struck a motorcycle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,38,000 as total compensation, with heads including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and medical expenses. The insurer contends that the Tribunal erred in holding negligence on the part of the minibus driver, in fixing the deceased’s income at Rs. 6,600 per month without evidence, and in applying 50% as future prospects rather than 40%; it also challenges several heads of compensation. The appellants rely on Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to contend pillion riders’ conduct cannot by itself establish contributory negligence, and on Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi for notional income and for 40% future prospects, respectively. The respondents argue that the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and computation should stand, and that the claimants’ dependents are entitled to compensation under several heads including loss of consortium and loss of dependency. The Kerala High Court re-determines several figures, adopting 8,000 as notional income, 40% future prospects, and an 18 multiplier, among other adjustments, resulting in a revised total. The appeal is disposed with directions to deposit Rs.20,25,400 with 9% interest and costs, within two months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa doctrine on notional income for self-employed deceased
Pranay Sethi principles on future prospects and multiplier
Satinder Kaur principle against duplicative awards of loss of love and affection/loss of consortium
N. Jayasree (Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd) guidance on recent reforms in quantum of compensation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contends contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the pillion rider merely for riding with three others on the motorcycle, citing Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020 KHC 6043), which holds that violation of law by a pillion rider, absent other contributing factors, does not by itself establish negligence. It challenges the Tribunal’s fixation of monthly income at Rs.6,600 and its addition of 50% as future prospects. It submits that for a self-employed deceased, notional income should be treated as Rs.8,000 (per Ramachandrappa), and only 40% should be added as future prospects (per Pranay Sethi). It argues for recalibration of the loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and other heads in light of these precedents, and questions the separate award for loss of love and affection in view of Satinder Kaur. It also urges revised calculations with a multiplier of 18 and appropriate deductions for personal living expenses, to arrive at a higher total compensation.”,

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants contend the Tribunal correctly found negligence on the part of the minibus driver and that the award was just and adequate across heads such as loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. They rely on established standards of calculation under Pranay Sethi for future prospects and the multiplier, and maintain that the Tribunal’s determination of income and dependency relationships should be upheld, arguing against any reduction of compensation. They support the award’s proportional distribution among dependents and rely on precedents to support the Tribunal’s approach in assessing damages for mental pain, loss of consortium, and related heads.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohammed Siddique and another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.	2020 KHC 6043: (2020) 3 SCC 57	Positive	Used to argue that merely being a pillion rider does not automatically establish contributory negligence unless proven to contribute to the accident’s impact; supports the appellant’s challenge to attributing contributory negligence.
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011(13) SCC 236: AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Provides the standard for notional income in case of self-employed deceased, which the High Court applied to fix Rs.8,000 per month.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Establishes the framework for future prospects and multiplier; used to fix 40% future prospects and the 18 multiplier.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur	[AIR 2020 SC 3076]	Positive	Guides deduction of duplicative awards; supports the correction in award where loss of love and affection head is treated in light of loss of consortium.
N. Jayasree and Others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd	(2021) 6 KHC 163 (SC)	Positive	Cited for adjustments under the Pranay Sethi framework and related head adjustments; supports updated compensation in light of recent SC guidance.
Pranay Sethi (followed in N. Jayasree)	(SC precedent cited within 2021 KHC 163)	Positive	Reinforces the 40% future prospects and use of multiplier in dependency calculations; used as supporting authority for the revised calculation.

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. P. Sahira 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 MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 242/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** ## **TRIBUNAL , MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 P.SAHIRA. W/O.ALIJI.P.(LATE), POTTAMMAL HOUSE,KANHIRAPARAMBU, CALICUT AIRPORT (PO), KONDOTTY AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.673 647.** - **2 POCKER POTTAMMAL HOUSE,KANHIRAPARAMBU, CALICUT AIRPORT (PO), KONDOTTY AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.673 647.** - **3 AYAMMA, W/O.POCKER, POTTAMMAL HOUSE,KANHIRAPARAMBU, CALICUT AIRPORT (PO), KONDOTTY AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.673 647.** - **4 SAWAD ALI P S/O.ALIJI.P.(LATE), POTTAMMAL HOUSE, KANHIRAPARAMBU, CALICUT AIRPORT (PO),KONDOTTY AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.673 647. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE SRI.P.SAMSUDIN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY ON** **27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..2..** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant insurance company is the 3[rd] respondent in O.P.(MV) No. 242/2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 2. The petitioners are the wife, parents and son of deceased Aliji. P, who met with an accident on 28.06.2011 while riding a motorcycle with three persons on the pillion. A minibus bearing registration No.KL-10AE-355, driven by the 1[st] respondent and owned by the 2[nd] respondent, hit against the motorcycle and Aliji sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident happened due to negligence on the part of the **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..3..** 1[st] respondent. They claimed an amount of Rs.10,06,000/- as compensation for the death of Aliji. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement contending that the accident happened due to negligence on the part of the deceased. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company filed written statement admitting the policy; but denying the liability. It was also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.22,37,720/which was rounded to Rs.22,38,000/- as total compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent was directed to satisfy the award. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is as follows: **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..4..** **==> picture [360 x 535] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claim Amount (in rupees) awarded (in rupees) 1. Transport to hospital 1000 1000 2. Extra nourishment 3000 Nil 3. Damage to clothing 2000 1000 and article 4. Medical expense 10000 Nil 5. Loss of consortium 50000 100000 6. Loss of estate 10000 100000 7. Funeral expense 5000 25000 8. Pain and suffering 25000 Nil 9. Loss of love and Nil 300000 affection 10 Loss of dependency 900000 1710720 Total 1006000 2237720 (claim (Rounded to limited to Rs.22,38,000) Rs.600000) **----- End of picture text -----** ## 5. Aggrieved by the award, the insurer has filed this ## appeal. **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..5..** 6. According to the appellant, the Tribunal went wrong in finding that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the minibus. The appellant also contends that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,600/- per month without any evidence on record and that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the income for future prospects. The deceased being a self-employed person without any fixed income, only 40% of the income can be added towards future prospects, it is contended. The appellant also challenged the compensation awarded under other heads. 7. Heard Smt. K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Shamsuddin, the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Smt. K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the rider of the motorcycle was **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..6..** riding the vehicle along with three others on the pillion and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have found contributory negligence on the part of the rider. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Mohammed Siddique and another** _**v**_ **. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020 KHC 6043:(2020) 3 SCC 57],** held that, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law, but such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. Just for the reason that the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle along with three others on the pillion, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the rider. Therefore, the said challenge **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..7..** cannot be sustained. 9. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a barber and was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month at the time of his death. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,600/- and added 50% of the income towards future v. prospects. Going by the decision in **Ramachandrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011(13) SCC 236: AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, I re-fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation. The Tribunal has gone wrong in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects. As per the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680], only 40% can be **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..8..** added towards future prospects in the case of the deceased. By adding 40% towards future prospects, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,200/[8,000+3200]. The multiplier to be adopted is '18'. There are four dependents and ¼ of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation for loss of dependency is re-worked as **Rs.18,14,400/- [11,200 x 12 x 18 x ¾].** An amount of Rs.17,10,720/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal under the head compensation for loss of dependency. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled for an - additional amount of **Rs.1,03,680/** [18,14,40017,10,720] under the said head. 10. Towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..9..** petitioners are entitled to Rs.44,000/- [40,000 + 10% _**v**_ **.** hike for three years ( **N. Jayasree and others Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd (2021 (6) KHC 163 SC)** ] each for loss of consortium. Accordingly, the compensation for loss of consortium is re-calculated as Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 x4). Therefore, an enhanced amount of **Rs.76,000** [1,76,000-1,00,000] is granted on that count. 11. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has been awarded under the head loss of love and affection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd.** _**v.**_ **Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076],** that, when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no justification in awarding compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head. Therefore, **Rs.3,00,000/-** awarded under the head loss of love and affection has to be deducted from the **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..10..** total compensation. 12. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Going by the decision reported in _**Pranay Sethi**_ (supra), followed in **N.Jayasree** (supra), the petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.16,500/- (15,000+10% hike for three years) under the said head. Therefore, **Rs.83,500/-** [1,00,000-16,500] has to be deducted from the total compensation. 13. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In the light of the decision in _**Pranay Sethi**_ (supra) followed in **N.Jayasree** (supra), the petitioners are entitled to get only an amount of Rs.16,500/- (15,000+10% hike for three years) under the head funeral expenses. Therefore, an amount of **Rs.8,500/-** (25,000-16500) has to be deducted. **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..11..** 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,000/- each under the heads transport to hospital and damage to clothing and article. I find the same to be just and reasonable. 15. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is re-worked as follows: **==> picture [370 x 401] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Difference No. awarded by fixed by the Tribunal this Court 1. Transport to 1,000 1,000 -- hospital -- -- 2. Extra Nil nourishment -- 3. Damage to 1,000 1,000 clothing and article -- -- 4. Medical Nil expense 5. Loss of 1,00,000 1,76,000 76,000 consortium 6. Loss of estate 1,00,000 16,500 -83,500 7. Funeral 25,000 16,500 -8,500 **----- End of picture text -----** **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..12..** **==> picture [370 x 297] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** expense -- -- 8. Pain and Nil suffering -- 9. Loss of love and 3,00,000 -3,00,000 affection 10 Loss of 17,10,720 18,14,400 1,03,680 dependency Total 2237720 20,25,400 -212320 (Rounded to Rs.22,38,00 0) **----- End of picture text -----** In the result, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of **Rs.20,25,400/-** (22,37,720 – 2,12,320) (Rupees twenty lakh twenty five thousand and four hundred only) as total compensation. This Court, by order dated 01.09.2016, has stayed the execution of the award. The appellant insurance company shall deposit the amount as per this judgment with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and **MACA NO. 2693 OF 2016 ..13..** costs before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB/28/05/2022