Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Rukmini and Others v. K.G. Babu and K.K. Nelson and National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date
2022-08-11
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The appellants are entitled to Rs.7,13,696/- as total compensation, of which Rs.2,28,646/- was the Tribunal’s award and Rs.4,85,050/- is enhanced compensation payable with the same rate of interest from the petition date, excluding the period of 456 days during which interest was excluded. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.3,137 in the name of M.A.C.T., Ernakulam, and to distribute 50% of the balance to appellant 1 and the remainder equally among appellants 2–4 within two months, after adjusting court fees as directed.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; directions issued for payment and deposit of enhanced amount; court fees to be paid as directed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rukmini
  • Radhakrishnan
  • Bindhu
  • Sindhu

Respondents

  • K.G. Babu
  • K.K. Nelson

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri R. Sudhish
  • • Smt. M. Manju
  • • Sri K.R. Ranjith

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri PMM. NajeeB Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam dated 16 February 2011 in O.P.(MV) No.2209/2006, concerning a death in a road accident on 18 May 2006 involving a bus (KL-7 AS 9429). The appellants – Rukmini, RadhaKrishnan, Bindhu and Sindhu – challenge the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation. The Tribunal held negligence by the bus driver and awarded Rs.2,28,646 with 8% interest. The appellants contend that the compensation is inadequate and relies on established legal principles for computation of dependency loss, including higher income, future prospects, and multiplier rules. They invoke Ramachandrappa to fix monthly income at Rs.5,500 (plus 10% future prospects per Pranay Sethi) and Sarla Verma for the correct multiplier (9 rather than 8 given age 57). The appellants also seek damages for loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and reductions in head amounts as directed by later precedents (Satinder Kaur) to be applied. The Respondents/Insurance Company contest the calculations but admit the policy. The High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.7,13,696 (Rs.4,85,050 as enhanced amount in addition to the Tribunal’s Rs.2,28,646), with the same rate of interest, and directed deposit of the enhanced amount and payment of court fees and balance among the appellants within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (multipliers and age-based considerations)
  • Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (income and future prospects)
  • National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (future prospects)
  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (reduction of certain heads)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal undervalued the deceased’s income, failed to apply the proper multiplier for the age of the deceased (57 years) and ignored the 10% future prospects mandated in Pranay Sethi. They relied on Ramachandrappa to fix monthly income at Rs.5,500 (plus 10% future prospects) and on Sarla Verma for the correct multiplier (9). They contended that loss of dependency should be recalculated as Rs.4,90,050, with Rs.3,30,050 enhanced beyond the Tribunal’s award; sought Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.10,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs.1,60,000 for loss of consortium; argued that pain and suffering and love and affection heads should be adjusted per Satinder Kaur. They urged deposit of enhanced compensation with proportional distribution among appellants and recovery of court fees.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer supported the Tribunal’s award, contesting the extent of enhancement and arguing that the calculation must reflect the Tribunal’s findings. It did not challenge the liability though it resisted large increments in heads of damages. The respondents also pressed for adherence to the Tribunal’s interest rate and excluded period, while urging proper computation and timely deposit of enhanced amounts, and questioned the applicability of certain head adjustments under Satinder Kaur’s ratio.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCourt follows the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the deceased’s income for calculation of dependency loss.
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]PositiveUsed to justify applying the correct multiplier (9) based on age.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors2017 (4) KLT 662PositiveUsed to support 10% addition towards future prospects.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others[2020 (3) KHC 760]PositiveApplied to reduce certain heads (pain and suffering, love and affection) per ratio.

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 Rukmini and Others v. K.G. Babu and K.K. Nelson and National Insurance Company 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 MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944 MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2209/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** ``` 1RUKMINI AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN, KOZHINJAVELIVEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA, ANJALITHARA, KUMBALANGHI,COCHIN - 7. ``` - **`2 RADHAKRISHNAN`** - **`AGED 37 YEARS S/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN KOZHINJAVELI VEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA, ANJALITHARA,KUMBALANGHI, COCHIN - 7.`** - **`3 BINDHU AGED 31 YEAS D/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN KOZHINJAVELI VEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA, ANJALITHARA,KUMBALANGHI, COCHIN - 7.`** - **`4 SINDHU`** ``` AGED 28 YEARS D/O.LATE K.N.VASUDEVAN KOZHINJAVELI VEETTIL, CHUDUKADUCHIRA, ANJALITHARA, KUMBALANGHI, COCHIN - 7. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1K.G.BABU S/O.GANGADHARAN, 2/316, KANNAPPANTHARA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD - 682502. ``` - **`2 K.K.NELSON`** ``` S/O.KUMARAN KUNNUMPURATH VEETTIL NEAR TREASURY, KADUNGASSERRY STOP, NAYARAMBALAM - 682509. ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012`** ``` 3NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NORTH PARAVUR - 683513. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’) by the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.2209/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenging award dated 16.02.2011. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company. 3. One Vasudevan died as a result of motor accident occurred on 18.05.2006 at about 5.30 p.m. According to the appellants, the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who had driven bus bearing registration No.KL-7 AS 9429, in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and hit down the above said Vasudevan, who was standing on ## **`MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012`** ## **`4`** the side of the road. Accordingly, the appellants filed petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 were declared ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. The third respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying accident and negligence. The quantum of compensation challenged while admitting policy. 6. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter relying on Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the appellants and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the insurer. 7. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the second respondent and granted compensation amounting to Rs.2,28,646/- along with 8% interest per annum from respondents 1 to 3. ``` MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ``` 5 ``` 8. On the ground of inadequacy of compensation, this appeal has been preferred. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the appellants claimed Rs.6,000/- per month as income of Vasudevan, who was engaged in fishing, the Tribunal fixed the same at Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, the income requires to be fixed, following the ratio in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236].** This submission is not opposed. Following the ratio in **Ramachandrappa’s** case (Supra), Rs.5,500/- is fixed as monthly income. 9. Though in the petition, the age of the deceased is shown as 55, Ext.A2 postmortem certificate would go to show that the age of the deceased was 57 at the time of accident and therefore, he would come in the age group between 56 – 60 and the multiplier is ‘9’ instead of ‘8’ applied by the Tribunal, following the ratio in **Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation &** ``` MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ## **`6`** **Anr. [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** . Similarly, 10% addition towards future prospects also is liable to be given in this matter, following the ratio in following the ratio in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi** **and Ors (2017 (4) KLT 662).** Thus, the monthly income for the purpose of calculating ‘loss of dependency’ is fixed at Rs.6050/- (Rs.5,500+550). The learned counsel for the appellants highlighted the number of dependents as 4. Therefore, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is 1/4[th] . Accordingly, ‘loss of dependency income’ is re-calculated as under:- 6050 x 12 x 9 x 3/4 = Rs.4,90,050/- Out of which, Rs.1,60,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, **Rs.3,30,050/-** (4,90,050 – 1,60,000) is granted as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency income’. 10. It is noticed that the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/under the head ‘funeral expenses’ while refusing ``` MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ``` 7 ``` compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. Therefore, following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi’s** case (supra), **Rs.15,000/-** is granted towards ‘loss of estate’ and **Rs.10,000/-** more is granted towards ‘funeral expenses’. 11. Apart from that, the Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get ‘loss of consortium’ to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4). Out of which, Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Reducing the same, Rs. **1,55,000/-** more is granted under the head ‘loss of consortium’. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Rs.10,000/- was granted under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.15,000/- granted under the head ‘love and affection’. The same are liable to be reduced as per the ratio in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [2020(3) KHC 760].** Thus, **Rs.25,000/-** is ``` MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ``` 8 ``` reduced under the said heads. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. It is ordered that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.7,13,696/- as compensation out of which Rs.2,28,646/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of **Rs.4,85,050/-** (Rupees four lakh eighty five thousand and fifty only) is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the Insurance Company, from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 456 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically excluded as per order in C.M.Application No.1 of 2012 dated 23.11.2021. It is noticed that court fee for Rs.4,00,000/- alone was paid by the appellants and they are liable to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.3,13,696/-. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.3137/- in the name of M.A.C.T., Ernakulam as additional court fee by a separate cheque ``` MACA NO. 1875 OF 2012 ``` ``` 9 ``` and deposit 50% of the balance amount in the name of the first appellant and the remaining in equal proportion in the name of appellants 2 to 4, within two months. ## **Sd/-** **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** nkr