High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-06-19Partly allowed; enhanced compensation and depos...

Sajna Manju.C.B and Dhilna (minor) v. The Managing Director KSRTC; Bijesh V.K.; New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-06-19
Court Decision / Holding: MACA is allowed in part. The appellants are granted an additional compensation of ₹9,40,060 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of OP(MV). The 3rd respondent (insurer) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within one month.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; enhanced compensation and deposit direction

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajna Manju.C.B.
Dhilna (minor)

Respondents

The Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram
Bijesh V.K.
New India Assurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri AVM Salahudeen

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Joy Joseph (Manayathu)
• Sri P.C. Chacko, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a motor-accident claims appeal under MACA No.1019 of 2017(F) arising from an award in OP(MV) 454/2016 of the Principal MACT, Kozhikode. The deceased Jamal, aged about 40, died in a collision with a KSRTC bus driven negligently by Bijesh V.K. The appellants, the wife and the minor daughter, claimed ₹50 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal found driver negligence but fixed the deceased’s notional income at ₹5,000 per month, rejecting Ext. A5 salary certificate and disbelieving that he worked as a foreman in Kuwait. It awarded ₹11,70,000 with 9% interest. The appellants argued Jamal earned ₹75,000/month abroad, urged reliance on guidelines from Syed Sadiq and Pranay Sethi for calculating compensation, and pressed higher sums for loss of dependency, love and affection, and loss of estate; they criticized the Tribunal’s notional income and some heads of damages. The respondents contended, citing Abraham Jacob, Valsamma, and Sherfuddin, that foreign salary certificates cannot be relied upon without requisite details, and that Indian standards should apply when overseas earnings are not proven. The High Court, applying Pranay Sethi and Syed Sadiq principles, recalculated notional income as ₹10,667/month with 15-year multiplier, modestly adjusted funeral, estate, and consortium, and ultimately enhanced total compensation by ₹9,40,060, directing deposit within one month.

Provisions of Law Cited

Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 — Section 3

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income with future prospects for unproved earnings (Syed Sadiq guidelines)
1/3 deduction for personal living expenses from income
Standardised heads of compensation under Pranay Sethi (funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium)
Credibility of salary certificates for foreign employment (Abraham Jacob v. Mubarak)
Reliance on Indian standard income when foreign proofs are insufficient (Valsamma v. Binu Jose; Sherfuddin v. Saveesh K.)
Multiplier method based on age at death (15-year multiplier in this case)
Syed Sadiq and other high court- guideline framework for manual labourers’ income

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that Jamal, aged 40, was employed as a foreman in Kuwait with a salary of ₹75,000 per month; the Tribunal erroneously fixed a meagre notional income of ₹5,000/month, affecting overall compensation. Ext. A5 (salary certificate) was disbelieved without valid justification, though the document suggested overseas employment. They relied on Syed Sadiq (2014) 2 SCC 735 and Pranay Sethi to fix notional income at ₹10,000/month with 40% future prospects, yielding ₹14,000/month, and a 15-year multiplier to compute loss of dependency. They contended that the Tribunal’s sums for pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, and funeral expenses were below standardised levels and should be revised to align with Pranay Sethi norms. The appellants sought enhancement of dependency, care and guidance, and loss of consortium, with a corrected calculation resulting in a higher overall award, plus interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the accident was the deceased’s fault, with the insurer admitting a policy; the salary certificate for overseas employment cannot be relied upon unless it includes details of job nature and entry into service, a position supported by Abraham Jacob v. Mubarak and similar DB judgments (Valsamma; Sherfuddin). In the absence of credible proof of abroad employment, the Tribunal’s fixation of ₹5,000/month was appropriate and consistent with Indian standards. They urged reductions or calibration of certain heads under Pranay Sethi norms and argued 9% interest is proper. Overall, the insurer argued for modest compensation and adherence to the Tribunal’s findings on income evidence.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abraham Jacob v. Mubarak	2014 (3) KLT 883	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that a salary certificate cannot be relied upon for overseas employment unless it contains essential details.
Valsamma and another v. Binu Jose and others	2014 (1) KHC 207 (DB)	Positive	Cited for adopting Indian standard income when abroad earnings cannot be proved.
Sherfuddin v. Saveesh K. and another	2014 (1) KHC 242 (DB)	Positive	Cited for adopting Indian standard income when overseas earnings cannot be proved.
Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	2014 (2) SCC 735	Positive	Guides fixing notional income at ₹10,000/month with future prospects for manual labourers when proof is lacking.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others	2017 (16) SCC 680	Positive	Authoritative standard for computing compensation; standardised heads and amounts under Pranay Sethi.
Jyani v. Raphael P T & Ors.	ILR 2016(2) Ker. 54 DB	Positive	Cited in relation to awards for pain and suffering and other heads.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	2013 ACJ 1403	Positive	Cited for loss of care and guidance and related heads; supports reassessment under Pranay Sethi norms.

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 Sajna Manju.C.B and Dhilna (minor) v. The Managing Director KSRTC; Bijesh V.K.; New India Assurance Company Limited 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 N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.454/2016 DATED 14-12-2016 OF THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SAJNA MANJU.C.B, W/O.JAMAL (LATE) 2 DHILNA (MINOR), DOB : 26/02/2006, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SAJNA MANJU C.B., BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SAFRON COTTAGE, MANDODI PARAMBA, P.O.NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673 015. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDDEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,**| |---|---| ||**KSRTC, FORT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.**| |**2**|**BIJESH V.K.,**| ||**S/O.DAMODHARAN,**| ||**RESIDING AT VAZHEKKANDY HOUSE,**| ||**P.O. KUNNATHARA,**| ||**ULLURKADAVU,**| ||**KOYILANDY,**| ||**KOZHIKODE-673 620.**| **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DO: 2ND FLOOR, REMA PLAZA, AYYAPAN COIL SS COIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, PIN-695 001.** **BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. BY ADV. SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MANAYATHU)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **:3:** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 19[th] day of June, 2020**_ The petitioners in OP(MV) No.454/2016 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, are in appeal aggrieved by Award dated 14.12.2016. 2. Before the Tribunal, the appellants contended that they are wife and minor daughter of the deceased Jamal. Deceased Jamal, while riding a motorcycle on 14.10.2015, a KSRTC Bus owned by the 1[st] respondentManaging Director and driven negligently by the 2[nd] respondent-Driver hit the motorcycle. The deceased was taken to Medical College Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. The appellants therefore sought a compensation of ₹50 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2-owner and driver, were set _ex parte_ by the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent-insurer filed **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** written statement admitting the insurance policy of the offending KSRTC Bus. The 3[rd] respondent, however, contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased, as claimed by the appellants, were denied by the insurer. 4. The appellants produced Exts.A1 to A6 documents. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent-Driver. The deceased was aged 40 years and the appellants claimed that his income was ₹75,000/- per month as a Foreman at Kuwait. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved Ext.A5 Salary Certificate produced. The Tribunal noted that Ext.A6 passport would not establish that the deceased had a permanent job in Gulf. On these premises, the Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased as ₹5,000/- per month. Adopting 15 as multiplier, the Tribunal awarded ₹11,70,000/- as compensation under the following heads:- **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **:5:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**The compensation** **claimed under different** **heads**|**Amount** **Claimed**|**Amount** **allowed**|**Basis/vital details in** **a nutshell**| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|5,000/-|| |2.|Funeral expenses|1,00,000/-|25,000/-|| |3.|Pain & suffering of the deceased|50,000/-|15,000/-|Jyani v. Raphael P T & Ors. Reported in ILR 2016(2)Kerl.54 DB| |4.|Loss of care and guidance for P2|Nil|50,000/-|Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403| |5.|Loss of love and affection|10,00,000/-|50,000/-|| |6.|Loss of estate|5,00,000/-|25,000/-|| |7.|Loss of consortium|5,00,000/-|1,00,000/-|| |8.|Loss of dependency|50,00,000/-|9,00,000/-|(5,000+2,500)x12x15x 2/3| ||Total||**11,70,000/-**|| Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the OP(MV). The 3[rd] respondent-insurer was directed to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the deceased Jamal was, in fact, working as a Foreman in Kuwait drawing a salary of ₹75,000/-. The fixation of notional income by the Tribunal at ₹5,000/- has substantially affected the total compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the amounts **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** awarded as compensation towards loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, pain and suffering, etc. are also on lower side. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, on the other hand, argued that referring to the cases of persons working abroad, when they die or get injuries consequent to a motor accident, a Division Bench of this Court in _**Abraham Jacob v. Mubarak** [2014 (3) KLT 883]_ has held that a salary certificate, even if authenticated in accordance with Section 3 of Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948, cannot be relied upon for calculating compensation, if the certificate does not contain details such as nature of employment, date of entry in service, etc. The learned Standing Counsel further relied on Division Bench judgments of this Court in _**Valsamma and another v. Binu Jose and others** [2014 (1) KHC 207 (DB)]_ and in _**Sherfuddin v. Saveesh K. and another** [2014 (1) KHC 242 (DB)]_ . In the said judgments, it was held that in the absence of sufficient documents or evidence to prove **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the exact income received by the deceased abroad, it is safe to assess income of the person, in the context of Indian standards, taking the probable income which he may have fetched if he was working in India during the relevant time. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in rejecting the claim of the appellants towards income of the deceased. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 3. 8. This is a case where the accident resulted in death of a 40 year old man. The family consisting of his 35 year old wife and 10 year old minor daughter approached the Tribunal for compensation. Going by the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, of ₹5,000/- towards transportation, ₹15,000/- towards pain and suffering, ₹50,000/- towards loss of care and guidance, ₹50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, I find that those amounts can be termed as just compensation under the respective heads. However, **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** going by the standardised rates prescribed in _**National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680]_ , the amount of ₹25,000/- for funeral expenses, ₹25,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹1 lakh towards loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal are on a higher side. 9. It has to be noted that in spite of the claim of the appellants regarding employment of the deceased as Foreman abroad, the Tribunal fixed notional monthly income of the deceased as ₹5,000/- only. Going by the principles and guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.** [(2014) 2 SCC 735]_ , the income of a manual labourer or self-employed person who cannot produce any proof of income, should be fixed at least as ₹10,000/- per month. Therefore, the deceased in this case also should be taken to have in receipt of a monthly income of ₹10,000/-. For calculating notional income, an addition of 40% has to be made towards future prospects. The notional income inclusive of future prospects should be thus **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** treated as ₹14,000/-. At the same time, 1/3[rd] of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Thus, the notional monthly income of the deceased should be taken as ₹10,667/- (₹10,000 + ₹4000 - ₹3,333). The deceased being 40 years of age, the appropriate multiplier will be 15. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependency to which the appellants will be entitled to, would be ₹19,20,060/(₹10,667 x 12 x 15). The Tribunal has already awarded ₹9,00,000/- towards loss of dependency. Adjusting the said amount, the appellants will be entitled to an additional compensation of **₹10,20,060/-** (₹19,20,060 – ₹9,00,000) towards compensation for disability. 10. The Tribunal has awarded ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses, ₹25,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in _**Pranay Sethi** (supra)_ and also taking into account the fact that the Tribunal has granted compensation liberally towards pain and suffering, **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** loss of care and loss of love and affection, the abovesaid amounts are to be reduced bringing them at par with standardised rates. Accordingly, it is held that the appellants will be entitled to ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses, ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹40,000/towards loss of consortium. Consequently, there will be a reduction of **₹80,000/-** under these heads. 11. Accordingly, the appellants will be entitled to enhancement of compensation under the following head:- Additional compensation towards loss of ₹10,20,060/dependency Compensation awarded under the following heads, is reduced as indicated below:- - (i) Loss of estate (₹10,000/- less than the ₹15,000/awarded amount) - (ii) Compensation for funeral expenses ₹15,000/(₹10,000/- less than the awarded amount) - (iii) Loss of consortium (₹60,000/- less than the ₹40,000/awarded amount) **MACA.No.1019 OF 2017(F)** **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Therefore the amounts awarded under the afore three heads will be reduced by ₹80,000/-. Accordingly, MACA is allowed in part. It is declared that the appellants are entitled to receive additional compensation of **₹9,40,060/-** (₹10,20,060 minus ₹80,000) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the OP(MV). The 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit the additional amount within one month. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/17/06/2020