Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal partly allowed; Tribunal’s award modifie...

Rugmani and others v United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 3617/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • MARY JOSEPH
Judgment Date
2023-11-06
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal partly allowed. The Tribunal’s quantum is recalculated: 1) monthly income retained at Rs.11,500, 2) dependency deduction changed from 1/3 to 1/4 (reflecting four legal representatives), 3) multiplier increased to 7 per Sarla Verma, 4) 10% increments for loss of estate and for loss of consortium applied as per Pranay Sethi, 5) pain and suffering amount reduced. The petitioners are awarded a total additional compensation of Rs.4,64,500 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing until realization, excluding 165 days of delay, payable within two months of certified copy. This enhances the compensation to reflect the updated calculations and jurisprudential guidelines.
Final Disposition
Appeal partly allowed; Tribunal’s award modified and enhanced compensation awarded with interest as specified.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rugmani
  • Ramdas
  • Devadas
  • Kumari
  • Ramani
  • Lathika
  • Rajani

Respondents

  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri. Baby Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. P.K. Manoj Kumar
  • • Adv. Smitha S. Pillai

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in OP(MV) No.1588/2018, arising out of a motor accident on 07.02.2018 in which Ramakrishnan died following injuries sustained while travelling in an autorickshaw (KL-49-B-2416) hit by a lorry (KL09-AC-8824). The petitioners, seven legal representatives of the deceased, sought compensation of Rs. 15,00,000, challenging the Tribunal’s quantum and the allocation of fault. The Tribunal held the lorry driver negligent and awarded Rs. 6,18,500 with interest at 8% p.a. and costs. The 3rd respondent insurer admitted the policy but contested negligence attribution and the quantum. On appeal, the appellants argue that the monthly income (Rs. 11,500) and the dependency deduction (1/3) were misapplied, and that, under Pranay Sethi and related jurisprudence, the conventional heads deserve higher compensation; they also urge applying the Sarla Verma multiplier (7) rather than 3 and that 10% increments for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium are warranted. The respondents contend negligence of the autorickshaw driver, not the lorry, and that the Tribunal’s award was reasonable. The High Court ultimately recalculates the compensation, modifies the multiplier to 7, applies 1/4 deduction, and grants additional awards, leading to a total enhanced benefit to the appellants with interest.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (multiplier principle)
  • National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others (principles for enhancements/10% increments)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants challenge the Tribunal’s quantum, arguing that the deceased’s monthly income should reflect a higher figure and that the dependency deduction should be 1/4 (not 1/3) since four legal representatives survived. They urge applying the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines to enhance conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium). They contend the multiplier should be 7 per Sarla Verma for age-appropriate computation, and seek additive adjustments (10% increments) per Pranay Sethi to reflect true compensation. They also contend any pain and suffering allowance should be reconsidered.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that negligence lay with the autorickshaw driver, not the lorry driver, and argue the Tribunal’s award is not excessive. They oppose the 10% enhancements and multiplier increase, and maintain the Tribunal’s structured calculation remains appropriate; they also argue the amount awarded for pain and suffering should be sustained or limited as per standard practices.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]PositiveThe decision relies on Pranay Sethi-related principles to justify the 10% increment for loss of estate and related heads.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]PositiveThe court adopts the multiplier of 7 as per the Sarla Verma guidelines for calculating dependency compensation.

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 Rugmani and others v United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 3617 OF 2022`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.07.2021 IN O.P(M.V) NO.1588/2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS ``` ## **`CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD`** ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - `1 RUGMANI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505` - `2 RAMDAS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANAA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505` - `3 DEVADAS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505` - `4 KUMARI, AGED 36 YEARS,W/O.BASKARAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505` - `5 RAMANI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505` - `6 LATHIKA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505` - `7 RAJANI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ODUVANKADU HOUSE, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASANA P O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678505 BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW` ## **`RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGER, IIIRD FLOOR, MALABAR FORT, PALAKKAD-678001. (INSURER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO KL/09/AC/8824, POLICY NO 1012003117P101783860, (VALID FROM 27/04/2017 TO 26/04/2018) BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR SMT.SMITHA S PILLAI ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2023, ``` ``` THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 06[th] day of November, 2023.** The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on 28.07.2021 in O.P(M.V) No.1588 of 2018. Appellants are petitioners before the Tribunal, who claimed to be legal representatives of one Mr.Ramakrishnan, who died in a motor accident occurred at 11.30 a.m on 07.02.2018. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners 1 to 7 and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition. 3. When Mr.Ramakrishnan was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-49-B-2416 from Koduvayur to Palakkad, a Lorry bearing Registration No.KL09-AC-8824, proceeding from the opposite direction and driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` the autorickshaw near Kinassery junction and thereby, he sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to Palana Hospital, Palakkad for treatment and was shifted therefrom to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur, where he died while undergoing treatment. A sum of `15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation and the motor accident was alleged as occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by the 2[nd] respondent. 4. All respondents were served with notice from the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement raising contentions that the motor accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by its driver and not due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by the 2[nd] respondent. Admittedly, the offending Lorry was insured with the 3[rd] respondent at the relevant time of the motor accident. 5. 3[rd] respondent had filed written statement admitting issuance of a valid policy for the Lorry as on date of the accident. It was contended that the motor accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` and not due to negligence of the driver of the Lorry. Claims of the petitioners regarding the age, the occupation and the monthly income of the deceased were disputed. Compensation claimed is also disputed for its exorbitant nature. 6. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the petitioners and Exts.B1 and B2, on the side of the 3[rd] respondent, as evidence. The Tribunal arrived at a finding of negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent and arrived at a sum of `6,18,500/- as the compensation payable in favour of the petitioners. Interest at the rate of 8% per annum was also ordered from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. Proportionate costs was also allowed. 7. The appellants are now before this Court in the appeal on hand challenging the quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the monthly income was fixed by the Tribunal as `11,500/- but while calculating compensation for loss of dependency, 1/3[rd] was deducted instead of 1/4[th] . According to ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` the learned counsel, four members survived the deceased as his legal representatives and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4[th] instead of 1/3[rd] . The learned counsel has also brought the attention of this Court to the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads and submitted that those are less than the sums for which the petitioners are entitled to as per **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** . 8. It is found from the impugned award that `15,000/each was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Since the period of consideration of the Original Petition by the Tribunal was after three years from the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** supra, the Tribunal ought to have added 10% to the compensation payable towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Likewise, the Tribunal ought to have added 10% also to `40,000/-, payable as compensation towards loss of consortium. ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 9. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal, being a reasonable sum is maintained and 1/3[rd] deduction adopted by the Tribunal being wrong is replaced by 1/4[th] . The multiplier was wrongly adopted by the Tribunal as 3 and this Court is inclined to replace the same by 7 on the basis of the directions issued by the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** . When compensation for loss of dependency is re-calculated afresh on the basis of the modified factors as above, `7,24,500/(`11,500/- x 12 x 7 x ¾) is arrived at. `2,76,000/- stood awarded by the Tribunal as compensation, when adjusted against that sum, petitioners will get `4,48,500/- as additional compensation under that head. 10. In view of the discussion hereinabove made, the petitioners are entitled to get `1,500/- each (`16,500/- - `15,000/-) as additional compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Each of the petitioners are entitled ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` to get `44,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium and thus `3,08,000/- (`44,000/- x 7 ) is arrived at. It is found from the impugned award that the Tribunal has already awarded `2,80,000/- and that amount when adjusted against the sum now arrive at, petitioners will get `28,000/(`3,08,000/- - `2,80,000/-) as additional compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent has pointed out that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of `15,000/as compensation towards pain and suffering. According to him, petitioners are dis-entitled to get compensation under that head. This Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent in that regard and therefore, `15,000/- stood awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is deducted from the total additional compensation now arrived at as payable. In the above manner of calculation of compensation afresh, petitioners will get `4,64,500/- [(`4,48,500/- + ``` MACA NO.3617/2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` `1,500/- + `1,500/- + `28,000/-) - (`15,000/-)] as total additional compensation, which will also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation excluding 165 days being the period of delay occurred in filing the appeal on hand, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment is received, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019. ``` Sd/- ``` **MARY JOSEPH** **JUDGE** JJ