RP No. 905 of 2017 in MACA 737/2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2018-01-08
Court Decision / Holding: Dismissed
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sumathy, W/o Sivadas
Aswathi, D/o Sivadas
Abhilash, S/o Sivadas
Janaki, W/o Appukuttan
Appukutttan, S/o Aru

Respondents

T.O.George
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Baby Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. R. Ajithkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court review petition filed by five appellants (Sumathy, Aswathi, Abhilash, Janaki, Appukuttan) challenging the MACA 737/2013 judgment of 16 September 2017, which had enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor-accident claim. The appellants contend the appeal was decided in their absence and that compensation for future prospects was not awarded. The Tribunal’s original award was Rs. 4,59,000 on a claim of Rs. 6,00,000; the High Court, though the appellants were unrepresented at hearing, proceeded to grant an additional compensation of Rs. 4,36,000 with 8% interest from the date of the petition to realization, describing this as just compensation. They argued that no addition for future prospects had been considered in determining the deceased’s income; the Court notionally fixed Rs. 4,500 as income, aligning with Ramachandrappa, while the claim had asserted Rs. 4,500 as earnings from cooking and selling food in a toddy shop. The review petition relies on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh to argue for future prospects; however, the Apex Court’s later Pranay Sethi decision clarified entitlement to future prospects and rejected the Rajesh line of authority. The Court notes that loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 25,000, respectively. In the result, the review petition is dismissed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income doctrine (Ramachandrappa)
Future prospects doctrine (Pranay Sethi)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the appeal was decided without their representation and that compensation towards future prospects was not considered. They submitted that the Tribunal’s Rs. 4,59,000 award on a Rs. 6 lakh claim had been augmented by this Court with an additional Rs. 4,36,000 at 8% interest, describing it as just. They maintained that no addition for future prospects had been included in determining the monthly income of the deceased and relied on Ramachandrappa to justify a notional income ( Rs. 4,500 ). They also relied on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh to justify seeking future-prospects, though later decisions indicate this line of authority was being clarified with Pranay Sethi.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel participated in the hearing and supported the lower award’s framework; no explicit counter-narrative was detailed in the document beyond contesting the petition’s grounds of merit. The court noted that the original claim and the enhanced compensation were examined, with emphasis on the income basis and the loss- and funeral-expenses components.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Court relied on Ramachandrappa to fix the notional income for dependency calculations.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Constitutional Bench decision permitting addition towards future prospects where income is established for self-employed claimants.
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others	(2013) 9 SCC 54	Overruled	Noted as not good law by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, thus distinguished/overridden in later jurisprudence.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939 RP.No. 905 of 2017 IN MACA. 737/2013 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MACA 737/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-09-2017 ## REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS ------------------------------- - 1 SUMATHY, W/O.SIVADAS, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE, THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. - 2 ASWATHI, D/O.SIVADAS, AGED 7 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE, THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. - 3 ABHILASH, S/O.SIVADAS, AGED 5 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE, THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. - 4 JANAKI, W/O.APPYUKUTTAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT - THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE, THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. - 5 APPUKUTTAN, S/O.ARU, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE, THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.BABY MATHEW ## RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS - ------------------------ 1. T.O.GEORGE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN THULAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADY P.O., KODALY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001 (R.C. OWNER OF LORRY NO.KL-1/8191) ## 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CITY HEIGHTS BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001 (INSURER OF LORRY NO.KL-1/8191) R2 BY R.AJITHKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **==========================** ## **R.P. No.905 OF 2017 IN M.A.C.A.No.737 OF 2013** **==========================** Dated this the 8[th] day of January, 2018 ## **ORDER** ## _Jyothindranath, J._ This review petition is filed by the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013. The appeal was disposed of by this Court by its judgment dated 16.9.2017. The grievance of the petitioners/appellants is that the appeal was decided in the absence of the appellants and no compensation awarded towards future prospects. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that it is an error apparent on the face of the records. 2. The learned counsel for the second respondent is also present. Heard the counsel. **R.P.905/2017 in M.A.C.A.737/2013** 2 3. We perused the records and judgment dated 16.9.2017 as well as the impugned award in which the judgment was passed. It can be seen that the total claim of the petitioners before the Tribunal was only Rs.6 lakhs, whereas the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,59,000/-. The challenge was against the said award. Even though, the appellants were not represented at the time of hearing, this Court granted an additional compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- with 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. That is, a just compensation assessed by this Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no additional income was considered by this Court towards future prospects in considering the monthly income of the deceased. It can be seen that this Court notionally fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. It is also relevant to note that the original claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.4,500/- by working as a cook and selling food in a toddy shop. The Tribunal found that there was no relevant **R.P.905/2017 in M.A.C.A.737/2013** 3 evidence to substantiate the claim, but considered a notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month. But considering the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236],** this Court notionally fixed an amount of Rs.4,500/-, which was the claim of the appellants, as the income of the deceased, to assess the compensation towards dependency. It is relevant to note that, after the disposal of the appeal, a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court decided in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** that towards future prospects, where the deceased was self employed and with established income, entitled for addition towards future prospects. In this case, surely, no income was established. It is also relevant to note that as per the said decision, the compensation awardable towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses are only Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. On these heads, this Court awarded in this case Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. It is **R.P.905/2017 in M.A.C.A.737/2013** 4 also relevant to note that to claim additional compensation, the revision petitioner relied on **Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others [(2013) 9 SCC 54]** which was found as not good law by the Apex Court in **Sethi** 's case (supra). In such circumstances, there is no merit in this review petition. Hence, it is dismissed. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **R.P.905/2017 in M.A.C.A.737/2013** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **R.P.905/2017 in M.A.C.A.737/2013** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**