High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-06Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced by...

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumangala and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 71 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2023-01-06
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified resulting in a deduction of Rs.45,400 (Rs.11,57,000 → Rs.11,09,600). All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced by Rs.45,400; all other Tribunal findings confirmed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondents

Sumangala W/o Appukuttan, Kulakkattuveli Colony Veedu, Mararikulom North, Ward No.XIV, Sreenarayanapuram 688 582, Alappuzha
Appukuttan S/o Narayanan, Kulakkattuveli Colony Veedu, Mararikulam North, Ward No.XIV, Sreenarayanapuram 688 582, Alappuzha
Sinimol D/o Appukuttan, Kulakkattuveli Colony Veedu, Mararikulam North, Ward No.XIV, Sreenarayanapuram 688 582, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri George Cherian (Sr.)
• Smt.K.S.SanthI

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv J. Om Prakash

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 71 of 2016) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, arises from OP(MV) No.349 of 2011 on the file of the Addl MACT, Alappuzha. The appellant insurer challenges the Tribunal’s award of Rs.11,57,000 (with 9% interest) in a death claim relating to Aneesh, who died in a road traffic accident on 11.11.2009 at Eramalloor Junction on the Alappuzha–Ernakulam National Highway. The insurer contends errors in income estimation, the application of future prospects, and the deduction for personal expenses, arguing that Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi dictate higher income and future-prospects adjustments; the insurer also seeks adjustments in various heads of compensation. The respondents are the parents and sister of the deceased. The court examines the evidence, notes that Exts. A1–A6 were marked, and scrutinizes the Tribunal’s computation. Applying the principles from Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi, the High Court revises certain heads (income, future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection) and, while disallowing pain and suffering, reduces the total compensation from Rs.11,57,000 to Rs.11,09,600, ruling that the appeal is allowed in part and the Tribunal’s other findings remain intact. The net effect is a Rs.45,400 downward revision. It concludes with a partial grant of relief to the appellant, while affirming most of the Tribunal’s conclusions.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects doctrine (Pranay Sethi, 2017)
Income estimation approach per Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) 13 SCC 236)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred by fixing the monthly income at Rs.5,000 and applying only 1/2 deduction for personal expenses. Citing Ramachandrappa (2011) to fix monthly income at Rs.7,000 for a 2009 accident and Pranay Sethi (2017) to grant 40% future prospects for a self-employed, under-40 deceased, the appellant argues the income should be Rs.9,800/month (7,000 + 40%). With a 17-year multiplier (age 26) and 1/2 personal expenses deduction, the loss of dependency is Rs.9,99,600. Funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000 (not Rs.25,000); loss of estate Rs.15,000 (not Rs.50,000); love and affection head should be curtailed given loss of consortium (Rs.80,000 to parents). Pain and suffering is not payable since death occurred en route to hospital. The insurer seeks revision of all heads to reflect the Pranay Sethi (supra) framework.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents/claimants contended in response that the petition was maintainable and that the Tribunal’s award adequately reflected the evidence and applicable heads of damages. The respondents denied negligence and argued the insurer’s liability, but their principale emphasis is on maintaining or increasing the award rather than challenging the therapeutic deductions in isolation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to fix the monthly income at Rs.7,000 for the year 2009 accident (Ramachandrappa standard).
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Applied for 40% future prospects for self-employed deceased under 40; cited for related adjustments in heads of damages (funeral, estate, etc.).

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. Sumangala 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 BASANT BALAJI** **FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944** **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** **OPMV 349/2011 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,** ## **ALAPPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY .SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 SUMANGALA W/O.APPUKUTTAN, KULAKKATTUVELI COLONY VEEDU, MARARIKULAM NORTH, WARD NO.XIV, SREENARAYANAPURAM 688 582, ALAPPUZHA. 2 APPUKUTTAN S/O.NARAYANAN, KULAKKATTUVELI COLONY VEEDU, MARARIKULAM NORTH, WARD NO.XIV, SREENARAYANAPURAM 688 582, ALAPPUZHA. 3 SINIMOL D/O.APPUKUTTAN, KULAKKATTUVELI COLONY VEEDU, MARARIKULAM NORTH, WARD NO.XIV, SREENARAYANAPURAM 688 582, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV SRI.J.OM PRAKASH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 6[th] day of January 2023) This appeal is filed by the 3[rd] respondent Insurance company in OP(MV) No.349 of 2011 on the files of Addl MACT, Alappuzha. Respondnt Nos.1 to 3 filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of one Aneesh who was the son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and brother of the 3[rd] respondent. 2. On 11.11.2009 at about 10 pm., at Eramalloor Junction in front of Mithila Bar and family restaurant on Alappuzha – Ernakulam national highway, the deceased met with an accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent in Original Petition, who had driven the Innova Car bearing registration No.KL-29/B 2009. Immediately after the **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** accident, the deceased was taken to Lakeshore hospital, Ernakulam where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 3. The Insurance company alone filed written statement stating that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident was admitted. But negligence was denied. The income, occupation and age of the deceased were denied and and contended that the claim is exorbitant. 4. On the side of the petitioners Ext.Nos.A1 to 6 were marked. There is no oral evidence. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,57,000/- with **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** -4- interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the Insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. Heard. 6. The counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.5,000/- and added 50% towards future prospects and calculated the loss of dependency. The Tribunal also erred in deducting only 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses though the deceased was a bachelor. The case of the petitioner/claimant is that the deceased was self employed with fixed wages but no evidence was produced before the court to substantiate the monthly income. Hence the Tribunal fixed the same at Rs.5,000/-. **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** -5- 7. Going by the decision reported in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236],** the monthly income to be taken for which an accident happened in the year 2009 is Rs.7,000/-. Relying the dictum relied in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [** (2017) 16 SCC 680], as the deceased was self employed and below the age of 40 years, 40% can be added towards future prospects. Hence the monthly income can be fixed as 7000+40% of 7000 = Rs.9,800/-. The multiplier to be adopted is 17 since the deceased was aged 26. But half the amount to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, loss of dependency can be calculated as 9800x12x17x1/2 = Rs.9,99,600/-. 8. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-, which has to be scaled down to Rs.15,000/- **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** -6- as per the decision reported in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). 9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate. As per the decision reported in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the same is also fixed as Rs.15,000/-. 10. For loss of love and affection as against the claim of Rs.30,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The parents, respondents Nos.1 and 2, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, which comes to Rs.80,000/- [See **Pranay Sethi** (supra)]. When compensation is granted under loss of consortium, separate amount under compensation for loss of love and affection cannot be granted. So, the amount of Rs.50,000/granted under loss of love and affection is set aside. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** -7- towards pain and suffering. Since the death of Mr. Aneesh was happened on the way to the hospital after the accident, the claimants are not entitled for the said amount. Hence, the amount granted under pain and sufferings is set aside. 11. Regarding all other heads, I find that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation. Thus, the following revisions are made to the award passed by the Tribunal: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded<br>by Tribunal<br>(Rs.)|Amt. revised in<br>appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|10,20,000|9,99,600| |2.|Funeral expenses|25,000|15,000| |3.|Loss of estate|50,000|15,000| |4.|Loss of love and affection|50,000|--| ## **MACA NO. 71 OF 2016** -8- |5.|Loss of consortium|–|80,000| |---|---|---|---| |6.|Pain and sufferings|10,000|--| ||Total|11,55,000|11,09,600| ||Amount reduced -Rs.11,55,000 – 11,09,600 = **Rs.45,400/-**||| In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified resulting in a deduction of Rs.45,400/- (Rupees forty five thousand and four hundred only). All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. Sd/ **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_