High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-02Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Rubeena & others v. Siraj & others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1266/2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2024-02-02
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, O.P.(MV).No.1239 of 2009, is directed to enhance the total compensation to Rs.11,08,700, with interest at 8% per annum from the petition date, and proportionate costs. The Insurance Company is to deposit the enhanced amount within three months, with the claimants furnishing PAN, AADHAAR, and bank details within two months. The delay of 186 days in filing the appeal is condoned, provided that no interest is payable on the enhanced amount for the period of delay. The insurer may deposit the amount before the Tribunal if details are not furnished in time.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; deposit ordered with interest; delay condoned subject to no interest on delayed period; PAN/AADHAR/bank details to be provided; possible deposit before Tribunal if details are not furnished.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RUBEENA
FATHIMA SUHRA @ SUHRA
FATHIMA RISLY (minor)
RATHIMA RESVANA (minor)
MOHAMED MISBAHUL HAK (minor)

Respondents

Siraj (driver)
Subair (owner)
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. M. Mohamed Abdurahiman Thoppil

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Biju S
• Smt. Latha Susan Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from a death in a motor vehicle accident on 11.05.2009, in which the deceased Muneer, husband of the first appellant and father to the others, was run over by an auto rickshaw owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. The Tribunal (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri) held the 1st respondent driver liable and awarded Rs.5,04,000/- as compensation, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The appellants challenged the quantum, contending that the Tribunal’s assessment under several heads was grossly inadequate. On review of the material, the High Court applied principles from Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to re-evaluate the dependency income (Rs.7,000/month instead of Rs.3,500), add 40% future prospects, and apply a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, resulting in a higher base. It also recalibrated other heads: loss of estate (Rs.15,000), funeral expenses (Rs.15,000), and loss of consortium (Rs.1,80,000 after set-off against love and affection). Citing Pranay Sethi and subsequent decisions (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Satinder Kaur), the court awarded a total of Rs.11,08,700 as enhanced compensation. The appeal was allowed, with deposit ordered by the insurer, interest at 8% on the enhanced amount, and other ancillary directions, including condonation of delay. Low evidentiary support for higher pre-accident income was acknowledged, but the court largely undertook a principled enhancement based on established multimodal precedents.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects in dependency compensation (Ramachandrappa)
Deduction for personal living expenses (1/4)
Loss of estate and funeral expenses guided by Pranay Sethi
Loss of consortium principles (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram; Satinder Kaur)
No double compensation for loss of love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded (Satinder Kaur)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal’s quantum is inadequately calculated. They rely on Ramachandrappa (2011) and Syed Sadiq (2014) to fix the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.7,000 in 2009, add 40% future prospects, and apply a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, given five dependents. With these adjustments, the loss of dependency would be around Rs.14,11,200, and after subtracting the Tribunal’s earlier award of Rs.5,04,000, an enhanced figure of Rs.9,07,200 is produced, plus Rs.10,000 for loss of estate and Rs.11,500 for funeral, and Rs.1,80,000 for loss of consortium, totaling Rs.11,08,700. They urge that the Tribunal’s award under loss of consortium should not be duplicated with separate love-and-affection compensation per Satinder Kaur, and that the insurer be directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within specified time. They also call for adherence to the principles laid down by Pranay Sethi for heads of compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the quantum, asserting the insurer’s liability but opposing substantial enhancement. They maintain that the evidence of actual monthly income is insufficient and that the Tribunal’s assessment should not be disturbed beyond reason. The 3rd respondent, though admitted to the policy, contests the higher claims for loss under several heads and seeks to avoid undue amplification of compensation; the primary dispute centers on the application of precedents to determine appropriate income, prospective gains, and the proper computation of damages.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to determine appropriate monthly income and future prospects for the deceased, adjusting the dependency calculation.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.	2014 (2) SCC 735	Positive	Applied alongside Ramachandrappa to refine income and prospects for dependency.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	Guided calculation of loss of estate and funeral expenses under modern precedents.
Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others	2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)	Positive	Supported loss of consortium computation for multiple dependants.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur	2020 (3) KHC 760	Positive	Supported the principle that when awards include loss of consortium, separate compensation for love and affection is not duplicative.

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 Rubeena & others v. Siraj & others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

MACA.No.1266/2013 1 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1266 OF 2013_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 1239/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT_ _CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI_ ## _APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:_ _1 RUBEENA, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.(DECEASED) MUNEER, S/O. MUHAMMED, PARAPPURATHHOUSE, KEZHICHERI, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT._ _2 FATHIMA SUHRA @ SUHRA, AGED 50 YEARS, MOTHER OF DECEASED, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KEZHICHERI, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT._ _3 FATHIMA RISLY (MINOR), AGED 3 YEARS, D/O.DECEASED, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KEZHICHERI, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT._ _4 RATHIMA RESVANA (MINOR), AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.DECEASED, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KEZHICHERI, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT._ - _5 MOHAMED MISBAHUL HAK (MINOR), D/O.DECEASED, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KEZHICHERI, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT._ _BY ADV.SRI.K.M.MOHAMED ABDURAHIMAN_ MACA.No.1266/2013 2 ## _RESPONDENT/S:_ - _1 SIRAJ, S/O.JABAR P., PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THAVINCHAL P.O., VALAD, VALIYAKALLI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (DRIVER). PIN-670 644._ _2 SUBAIR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MELANGADI P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER) PIN-673 648._ - _3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MANJERI, PIN-676 122._ _BY ADV.BIJU S._ ## _OTHER PRESENT:_ _ADV.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN - R3_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1360/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.1266/2013 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.1239 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of one Muneer due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 11.05.2009. The deceased was the husband of the 1st appellant, the son of the 2nd appellant and the father of the appellants 3 to 5. 2. The accident occurred when he was run over by an auto rickshaw driven by the 1st respondent. The said vehicle was owned by the 2nd respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was claimed to be a driver and was also engaged in real estate business with a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. He was 31 years old at the time of the accident. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 3rd respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the insurance policy for the auto rickshaw. However, they disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants. MACA.No.1266/2013 4 4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. After the Trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent in driving the auto rickshaw and being the insurer of the said vehicle; the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.5,32,500/-, and the said amount was directed to be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard Sri.K.M.M.Abdurahiman Thoppil, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement of compensation is to be granted or not. On carefully going through the materials placed on record, it can be seen that the amounts awarded under various heads are grossly inadequate. The first aspect to be noticed is the compensation for loss of dependency, which was calculated by taking the monthly MACA.No.1266/2013 5 income of Rs.3,500/-, which appears to be very much on the lower side. Of course, it is true that even though the monthly income of Rs.12,000/- was claimed, absolutely no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. However, the amount of Rs.3,500/- taken by the Tribunal as monthly income was not adequate considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009. Since no evidence is available on record to show the monthly income, I deem it appropriate to apply the monthly income, calculated on the basis of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd .[2011 (13) SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[2014 (2) SCC 735],** which would come to Rs.7,000/- as the accident was in the year 2009. Since the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 40% has to be made towards future prospects. Similarly, as the deceased left behind five dependents, including the wife, mother and children, the deduction towards personal expenses should be ¼. While re-assessing the compensation with the above criteria, the compensation would come to Rs.14,11,200/- [(7000+40%)x 12x16x3/4.]. The amount MACA.No.1266/2013 6 already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.5,04,000/- and thus, the additional amount of compensation would come to Rs.9,07,200/-. 7. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate was only Rs.5,000/-, whereas the proper amount should have been Rs.15,000/- in the light of **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)].** Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded. Similarly, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,500/- under the head funeral expenses, whereas the actual amount would be Rs.15,000/- as per **Pranay Sethi (supra)** . Therefore, a further sum of Rs.11,500/- is awarded under the said head. 8. The next head which requires consideration is the loss of consortium. In the light of the **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others 2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020 (3) KHC 760]** all the appellants, being wife, mother and the children of the deceased are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, thereby making out a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and a MACA.No.1266/2013 7 further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Since it is held in **Satinder Kaur (supra)** that when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, no separate compensation needs to be granted for loss of love and affection, the amount awarded under the said head is adjusted towards the amount awarded under the head loss of the consortium. Accordingly, the additional compensation for loss of consortium is determined as Rs.1,80,000/-. Thus, the total compensation is determined as Rs.11,08,700/- (9,07,200+10000+11500+180000). In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV).No.1239 of 2009 is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.11,08,700/- (eleven lakhs eight thousand and seven hundred only) and the said amount is directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and proportionate costs from the date of petition till realization and such payment shall be effected within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable MACA.No.1266/2013 8 the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case they fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. It is further clarified that, as the delay of 186 days in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court subject to the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for any additional amount awarded for the period of delay, the 3rd respondent shall be entitled to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/5.2.24