Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,...

Sadanandan Achari and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC Transport Bhavan; Annie Mathew; The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2198 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2019-08-29
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,10,200. Interest on the enhanced amount at 7.5% and directions for deposit/disbursal of the enhanced amount were issued. All other directions in the impugned award remain in force. interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,10,200 to be paid to claimants; interest at 7.5% on the enhanced amount; parties may approach the Tribunal for deposit and disbursal; all other directions in the award remain.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sadanandan Achari
  • Shajith
  • Manju
  • Saritha

Respondents

  • Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C Transport Bhavan, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003
  • Annie Mathew (s/o Mathukutty), Charuvila Veedu, Sadanandapuram, Vetti kavala village, Kottarakkara – 691 506
  • The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thampanoor Branch, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri H. Praveen (Advocate for Saritha)
  • • (Other applicants' counsel not stated in document)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri P. C. Chacko, SC, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn.
  • • Sri Joy Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court hears MACA No.2198 of 2016, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur award for the death of Saji, a 31-year-old building contractor, in a 16 July 2011 accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,74,000, while the claimants sought Rs. 20,00,000. The court, noting lack of evidence on the deceased’s income, adopts precedents from Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify re-evaluating the monthly income, and then applies the Pranay Sethi formula for future prospects, given the deceased’s age and bachelor status. The judge finds the Tribunal’s Rs. 8,000 monthly income plausible and, using 40% future prospects and the 16-multiplier, computes loss of dependency at Rs. 10,75,200. The tribunal’s award under this head (Rs. 6,40,000) is thus inadequate, warranting an additional Rs. 4,35,200. Additional standard heads—pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and love-and-affection—are re-assessed: Rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, and Rs. 40,000 each to the father and siblings for loss of love and affection (total adjustment to Rs. 1,00,000 under that head). Overall, the court grants Rs. 5,10,200 more as compensation, with interest at 7.5%, and directs deposit/disbursal arrangements; prior directions remain in force. The appeal is allowed in part, with enhanced compensation.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased’s actual monthly income was Rs. 8,000 and that the absence of direct income evidence should be mitigated by applying established precedents (Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq) and the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines on future prospects (40%). They contend for higher compensation under loss of dependency and for additional amounts under pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and love/affection to reflect the deceased’s income level and the impact on the claimants.

Contentions of Respondents

No explicit separate argument section for respondents is provided in the judgment; the tribunal’s approach is based on evidence presented and the court’s review of the sufficiency of that evidence, with emphasis on appropriate application of precedents to determine income, future prospects, and loss heads.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveJudge cites this decision to support higher monthly earnings for similar cases, aligning with the practice of using credible benchmarks for income when direct evidence is lacking.
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(2014) 2 SCC 735PositiveUsed alongside Ramachandrappa to justify higher income estimations under loss of dependency.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 4 KLT 662 (SC)PositiveGuided the application of future prospects (40%) and personal deductions in calculating dependency loss; central to the enhanced computation.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others(2018 ACJ 2782)PositiveCited to support the assessment of damages for love and affection in light of contemporary precedents.

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 Sadanandan Achari and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC Transport Bhavan; Annie Mathew; The Manager, New India Assurance 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 MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941 MACA.No.2198 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 803/2011 DATED 04-04-2016 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1. SADANANDAN ACHARI, S/O.SIVASANKARAN ACHARI NEDIYAKALAYIL PADINJATTATHIL, SAJI BHAVAN PALLIKKAL MURI, KOTTATHALA P.O., MYLOM, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM** **2. SHAJITH, S/O. SADANANDAN ACHARI** - **DO-** **3. MANJU, D/O. SADANANDAN ACHARI** - **DO -** **4. SARITHA, D/O. SADANANDAN ACHARI -DOBY ADV. SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C TRANSPORT BHVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 003.** **2. ANI MATHEW, S/O.MATHUKUTTY, CHARUVILA VEEDU, SADANANDAPURAM, VETTIKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA – 691 506 (WRONGLY SHOWN AS ANNIE MATHEW IN CAUSE TITLE)** 2 ## **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** **3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THAMPANOOR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOY JOSEPH** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. One Saji, aged 31 years died in a motor accident took place on 16.7.2011. It is stated in the claim petition that he was a building contractor. His father and three younger siblings were the claimants in the proceedings. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.7,74,000/- by way of compensation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said compensation that the claimants have come up in this appeal. **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** 4 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Though it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency. 5. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea as regards the income of the deceased, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** , [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and **Syed Sadiq** v. **Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** , [(2014) 2 SCC 735], where the Apex Court has reckoned the monthly income of similarly placed persons at Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,500/- in the context of the accidents took place in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively, I am of the view that the monthly income of the deceased in the instant case could have been certainly 5 ## **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/-, in the context of the accident took place in 2011. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], as the deceased was a bachelor, one half of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, and as the deceased was aged below 40, 40% of the income reckoned has to be added towards future prospects for arriving at the multiplicand while computing the compensation for loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 31, the multiplier to be applied for the said purpose is '16'. If compensation for loss of dependency is arrived at on that basis, the same would come to Rs.10,75,200/(Rs.8000x12x1/2x140/100x16). As the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- towards compensation under that head, the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,35,200/-. 6. It is trite that a conventional amount has to be granted in all cases of death towards compensation for pain and **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** 6 suffering. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs 50,000/- under that head. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, Rs.15,000/- would have been the appropriate compensation payable to the claimants under that head. Rs. 35,000/- granted by way of compensation is, therefore, excessive. 7. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi** , and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2011, I am of the view that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.15,000/towards compensation for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head funeral expenses. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/under those heads. 8. Coming to the compensation for loss of love and affection, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram and** **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** 7 **others** (2018 ACJ 2782) and having regard to the fact that the accident in the instant case is one that took place in the year 2011, I am of the view that the father and younger siblings of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. As the claimants were granted only a sum of Rs.60,000/- under that head, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of additional compensation. 9. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the remaining heads appear to be in order. 10. In short, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,10,200/- by way of additional compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting to the claimants a sum of Rs.5,10,200/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned award will stand. The parties will be at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional 8 ## **M.A.C.A No.2198 of 2016** amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** DK