High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-29Partial modification of the award; quantum redu...

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Vincent S/o Pappu & Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1758/2018 (B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2021-03-29
Court Decision / Holding: Partial allowed; the quantum of compensation is revised to Rs.15,80,000 with interest at 8% per annum. The appellant is directed to deposit the revised amount after adjusting sums already deposited. Heads such as filial consortium are adjusted (Rs.80,000 total), and prior head awards for love and affection are curtailed; funeral expenses and loss of estate are aligned with jurisprudence. The court held that the non-organized sector income estimation allows deviation, and some adjustments are permissible to reflect peculiar facts.
Final Disposition: Partial modification of the award; quantum reduced and adjusted, interest reduced; English: The award is revised to Rs.15,80,000 with 8% interest and deposit obligations clarified.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Respondents

Vincent s/o Pappu
Elsy Vincent w/o Vincent
Elveena Vincent d/o Vincent

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. A.N. Santosh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No.1758 of 2018) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in MACT O.P. (MV) No.501 of 2014, arising out of a death of a 25-year-old heavy-vehicle driver. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,95,000 with 9% interest. The insurer contested both the quantum and certain heads of compensation, including the assumed monthly income and the 50% future prospects addition, as well as heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection, and loss of consortium. The respondents claimed Rs.20,00,000 and produced Ext.A5 (driving license) to establish the deceased’s income as a professional driver. The High Court re-evaluated the quantum by applying Supreme Court principles; it found the Tribunal’s monthly income of Rs.9,000 to be on the lower side (not on the higher side), but ultimately fixed Rs.9,500 as a reasonable income and adopted a 40% future-prospects addition (per Pranay Sethi) for non-employee salaries. It adjusted filial consortium to Rs.40,000 each for respondents 1 and 2, excluded a claim for respondent 3 under love and affection, and deducted Rs.1,00,000 for loss of love and affection, along with Rs.75,000 for loss of consortium. Interest was reduced to 8%. The final payable amount was recalculated to Rs.15,80,000 with interest at 8% from the petition date, after setting off sums already deposited. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the revised amount after adjustment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company (2014) 2 SCC 735
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) 13 SCC 236
National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 4 KLT 662
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinderkaur and Others (2020) 3 KHC 760

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer submitted that the Tribunal erred by fixing a monthly income of Rs.9,000 without evidence of avocation and earnings; the 50% addition for future prospects was contested as excessive. It argued for a higher monthly income (Rs.9,500) with a 40% future prospects addition (per Pranay Sethi) and challenged heads like funeral expenses and loss of estate as well as love and affection and loss of consortium heads as over- or unnecessary. It urged reducing the interest rate to 8% and subtracting amounts already deposited; overall, it sought a substantial reduction in the total award.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants contended that the deceased, a professional heavy-vehicle driver, earned Rs.9,000 per month and that this income was reasonable in the context; they maintained the 50% future prospects addition as appropriate and argued for no substantial deduction from funeral expenses, loss of estate, or love and affection. They supported the head of filial consortium rates and argued that the loss of consortium entitlement should be paid, while ensuring that love and affection is not double-compensated. They sought to maintain the Tribunal’s framework and oppose large reductions in the awarded amount.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited for principles governing computation of income and allowances in motor accident claims; court applied these principles to justify adjusting income and future prospects in light of evidence.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to support that income estimation in non-organized sectors may require informed estimates rather than rigid arithmetic, guiding the Rs.9,500 figure.
National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 4 KLT 662	Positive	Adopted the 40% addition for future prospects for non-salaried individuals; applied to determine revised compensation.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinderkaur & Others	(2020) 3 KHC 760	Positive	Used to fix filial consortium at Rs.40,000 each, limiting entitlement for the third respondent; guided by the proportionate consortium scheme.

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 Company Limited v. Vincent S/o Pappu & 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943_ ## _MACA.No.1758 OF 2018(B)_ _AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 501/2014 DATED 04-08-2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANT/S:_ _RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KADAVANTHARA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-682 020._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENT/S:_ _1 VINCENT S/O.PAPPU, PADAMATTUMMAL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM KARA,PALLIPPORT P.O., KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, PIN- 683 515._ _2 ELSY VINCENT W/O.VINCENT, PADAMATTUMMAL HOUSE,PALLIPURAM KARA, PALLIPPORT P.O.,KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, PIN - 683 515._ _3 ELVEENA VINCENT D/O.VINCENT, PADAMATTUMMAL HOUSE,PALLIPURAM KARA, PALLIPPORT P.O.,KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, PIN - 683 515._ ## _R1-3 BY ADV. A.N.SANTHOSH_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _2_ ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 29[th] day of March, 2021 This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. (MV).No.501 of 2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. The claim petition was filed by the respondents herein seeking compensation for the death of a person aged 25 years, who is the son of respondents 1 and 2, and the brother of the 3[rd] respondent. According to the respondents/claimants, deceased was aged 25 years and was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his avocation as a heavy vehicle driver. The total amount of compensation claimed was Rs.20,00,000/-. 2. The appellant Insurance Company appeared and filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed. 3. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A5 from the side of the respondents/petitioners. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _3_ 4. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an award allowing a total compensation of Rs.16,95,000/- and the appellant Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. The Insurance Company filed this appeal in the above circumstances, disputing the quantum of compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. One of the main contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation is Rs.9,000/-, which is on higher side. According to the learned counsel no evidence was adduced to prove the avocation and the income derived there from. In addition to the above, the learned counsel also disputed the addition of 50% made by the Tribunal towards future prospectus. 7. In response to the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is on lower side. Respondent had already produced Ext.A5 driving license, from which it is _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _4_ evident that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver and therefore, he being a professionally skilled employee the monthly income taken as Rs 9,000/- is on lower side. While considering the said issue, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** and **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** are relevant. While applying the aforesaid principle in this case, under no circumstances, the monthly income of Rs.9,000/- as fixed by the Tribunal, can be treated as on higher side. On the other hand, at least an amount of Rs.9,500/- would have been reasonable for the purpose of computing the compensation. Another contention raised by the Insurance Company is to the effect that the addition made towards future prospectus at the rate of 50% is on higher side. It is to be held in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662],** appropriate addition is 40%, with respect to the persons other than employees with regular monthly salary. Thus, while reworking the compensation by fixing the monthly income as Rs.9,500/- and applying an _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _5_ addition of 40% thereof, the amount of compensation payable shall be Rs.14,36,400/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.14,58,000/-. Thus the difference is only Rs.21,600/-. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the computation of monthly income of a person employed in a non organized sector, cannot be fixed with arithmetical precision. In such circumstances, some guess works have to be made, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Even though there are guidelines stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, for the purpose of computing the compensation in such circumstances, there may arise a situations where some deviations have to be made depending upon the peculiar factual situations. In this case, while reworking the compensation by fixing the monthly income as Rs.9,500/and applying an addition of 40%, the compensation receivable under the head of loss of dependency will be slightly lessor than calculated by the Tribunal. Since, the differential amount is only Rs.21,600/- and this being a marginal amount, this Court is of the view that, no interference is warranted under the said head. It is a fact that, provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _6_ relating to the compensation, is part of a welfare legislation, where the interests of the victims have to be given predominance. While taking the decision as above, this court has also taken into consideration , the above aspect as well. Further, the claimants herein belong to low income group , is also another contributory factor behind such decision. 8. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the amounts awarded under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate are at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each, which are on higher side. It is true that the said amounts are fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Pranay Sethi’s case** , at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each and therefore, Rs.20,000/- is in excess, when both the heads are taken together. Therefore, this has to be deducted. Similarly it is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and a further sum of Rs.75,000/- has been granted towards loss of consortium. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinderkaur @ Satwinderkaur and Others [2020(3)KHC 760]** , the respondents 1 and 2 shall be _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _7_ entitled for filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The 3[rd] respondent/3[rd] petitioner, being the sister of the deceased, shall not be entitled for any amount under this head. Thus the total compensation receivable under the head of loss of consortium shall be Rs.80,000/-, as against Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus they are entitled for a further sum of Rs 5,000/- under this head. It is also settled in this regard that, when compensation is granted under the head of loss of consortium, no further amount is to be granted under the head loss of love and affection. In this case, as an amount of Rs.80,000/- is granted under the head of loss of consortium, and hence no further amount is to be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal is to be deducted. 9. It is further pointed out that the interest granted by the Tribunal is 9% per annum and it is in higher side. Considering the existing rate of interest and also other relevant aspects, this Court is of the view that interest at the rate of 8% would be justifiable. In the above circumstances, the amount of Rs.16,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is revised as Rs.15,80,000/- [1695000-100000-20000 + 5000]. _M.A.C.A.No.1758/2018_ _8_ The appellant, Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization after adjusting the amount already deposited by them. _Sd/-_ **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG