High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-17The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal’s award ...

Saramma Chacko and Sanal M.O. v. Aby Johnson and The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 119 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-08-17
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal’s award is revised: the notional income is set at Rs.6,000 per month (2007), 25% future prospects applied, and various heads are adjusted in light of Pranay Sethi, Ramachandappa, Pushkar Mehra, and Satinder Kaur. Funeral expenses are reduced (Rs.25,000 is adjusted to Rs.10,000 after deducting Rs.15,000 per Pranay Sethi), loss of love and affection is not additionally counted after deducting Rs.50,000 in favor of the two dependents, and loss of consortium is reduced to Rs.80,000 (with Rs.20,000 deducted), resulting in an overall total of Rs.2,31,800. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit this enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realization, plus proportionate costs, within two months; 102 days of interest are excluded as per order dated 19.1.2022.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal’s award is modified accordingly; deposit within two months at 9% interest; 102 days of interest excluded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saramma Chacko
Sanal M.O.

Respondents

Aby Johnson
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ennakkattil Estate, Near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Thiruvalla 689 648

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.K. Biju (Manjinikara)
• Smt. Annie M. Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew
• Sri. Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

MACA No.119 of 2015 arises from an appeal against an award of Rs 6,64,200 with 9% interest in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in OP(MV) No.83/2008, concerning the death of Chacko, a 48-year-old mason, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 13 November 2007 while travelling in an autorickshaw. The petitioners, the wife and son, claimed compensation of Rs 9,95,000 for loss of dependency and other heads. The Tribunal held the first respondent negligent and assessed Rs 6,64,200, distributing the amount across heads such as loss of dependency (Rs 4,73,200), funeral expenses (Rs 25,000), loss of love and affection (Rs 50,000), loss of consortium (Rs 1,00,000), and loss of estate (Rs 5,000), with the balance under other heads and 9% interest from the date of filing till realization. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company contended the amount was excessive. The High Court re-examines the evidence, aligning with Supreme Court principles on MV Act awards, including notional income, future prospects, and deductions for personal living expenses, as well as the relationship between loss of love/affection and loss of consortium. It fixes the notional income at Rs 6,000 per month for 2007, applies 25% future prospects, and uses Ramachandappa, Pushkar Mehra, and Satinder Kaur to refine the heads. The result is a revised total of Rs 2,31,800. The appeal is allowed, directing deposit of the enhanced amount at 9% interest within two months, with proportionate costs, and noting a 102-day exclusion for interest.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income for deceased (guidance from Ramachandappa, Pushkar Mehra)
Future prospects: 25% addition for not permanently employed deceased (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi)
Deduction for personal and living expenses (1/3)
Loss of consortium vs loss of love and affection (Satinder Kaur)
Funeral expenses cap (Pranay Sethi)
Pain and suffering not recoverable per United India Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased’s income should be higher (claimed Rs. 8,000 per month) and that future prospects should be considered more generously. They relied on decisions fixing higher notional income for skilled workers and on Ramachandappa and Pushkar Mehra to justify a larger notional income and greater dependency loss. They criticized the Tribunal’s approach to future prospects and the deduction for personal living expenses (1/3). They sought enhanced compensation under several heads, including Love and Affection, Estate, and Funeral expenses, contending the award did not reflect the actual dependence of two dependents and the social value of the deceased’s labour.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent insurer argued that the claim was excessive and sought to keep the Tribunal’s award within reasonable bounds. They relied on prior verdicts to limit notional income and future prospects, and pressed for reductions in several heads of loss. They also invoked decisions limiting recovery for pain and suffering and clarifying the interplay between loss of love/affection and loss of consortium.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to justify 25% addition towards future prospects for a deceased without permanent employment.
Ramachandrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited for notional income concept guiding awards in motor-accident cases.
Pushkar Mehra v. Brij Mohan Kushwala and others	(2015) 12 SCC 688	Positive	Guided notional income benchmarks for skilled labourers around 2010.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.	(AIR 2020 SC 3076)	Positive	Precludes separate compensation for love and affection when loss of consortium is awarded.
United India Insurance Company v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.	(AIR 2020 SC 3076)	Positive	Not entitled to pain and suffering; used to deduct such heads in this case.

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 Saramma Chacko and Sanal M.O. v. Aby Johnson and The Branch Manager, National 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 MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 119 OF 2015`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.04.2014 IN OPMV 83/2008 OF ``` ``` ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA / I ADDL. M.A.C.T. ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN THE O.P.(MV):`** ``` 1SARAMMA CHACKO AGED 50 YEARS W/O.LATE CHACKO, MUKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NARAKATHANY P.O. MALLAPPALLY. ``` ``` 2SANAL M.O. AGED 27 YEARS S/O.LATE CHAKO, -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P.(M.V):`** ``` 1ABY JOHNSON S/O.P.JOHN, PALLIPADIYIL HOUSE, NARAKATHANY PO, KEEZHVAIPUR, MALLAPPALLY 689 544 2THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENNAKKATTIL ESTATE, NEAR K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, THIRUVALLA 689 648 BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.83/08 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta are the appellants. The respondents herein were the respondents in the claim petition. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners are the wife and son respectively of late Chacko who died in a motor vehicle accident which happened on 13.11.2007. According to the petitioners, while Chacko was travelling in an autorikshaw owned and driven by the 1[st] respondent, it capsized and Chacko sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.9,95,000/- as compensation for the death of Chacko. 3. The 1[st] respondent did not contest the claim ## **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015 3** before the Tribunal. The 2[nd] respondent insurance company admitted the insurance policy, but contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent and awarded an amount of Rs. 6,64,200/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The split up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is given below:- |Sl.No.|Head of claim|Amount claimed|Amount awarded| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of dependency|700000/-|473200/-| |2.|Partial loss of earnings||| |3.|Transport to hospital|2000/-|5,000/-| |4.|Extra nourishment||| |5.|Bystander's expenses||| |6.|Damage to clothes|1000/-|1,000/-| |7.|Medical expenses|22000|| |8.|Funeral expenses|25000/-|25000/-| |9.|Pain and suferings|20000|5000/-| |10.|Loss of love and afection|100000/-|50000/-| |11.|Loss of consortium|100000/-|1,00000/-| |12.|Loss of estate|25000/-|5,000/-| |13.|Loss of amenities||| ||Total|9,95,000/-|6,64,200/-| **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015** **4** Aggrieved by the amount awarded as compensation, the petitioners have preferred this appeal. 5. The deceased was a mason. He was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. So the Tribunal has taken the multiplier as ‘13’. Though the petitioners claimed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, the Tribunal in the absence of evidence, took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-. Towards future prospects, the Tribunal had added 30%, whereas, as per the decision of the Apex Court in **National** _**v**_ **Insurance Company Limited . Pranay Sethi and others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680], only 25% can be added towards future prospects in the case of deceased who did not have any permanent employment. Since there are two dependents, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. ## **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015 5** 6. According to the petitioners, the deceased was doing a skilled job of mason and the Tribunal should have taken the income as Rs.8,000/- as claimed by them. The Apex Court in _**v**_ **Ramachadrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company [(2011) 13. SCC 236]** has taken the notional income of a casual worker as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident of the year 2004. In **Pushkar Mehra** _**v**_ **. Brij Mohan Kushwala and others [(2015) 12 SCC 688]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a skilled labourer in the year 2010 at Rs. 7,020/- per month. Taking guidance from the said decisions, the notional income of the deceased in the year 2007 can be fixed as Rs.6,000/-. By adding 25% of the income towards future prospects, the total income would come to Rs.7,500/(6000+1500). Accordingly, the compensation for loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.7,80,000/-(Rs.7500x12x13x2/3). Since the ## **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015 6** petitioners have been awarded an amount of Rs.4,73,200/-, they are entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.3,06,800/-** under the head 'loss of dependency'. Towards funeral expenses, the petitioners have been awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-. In the light of the dictum laid down in _**v**_ **National Insurance Company . Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)],** the petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head funeral expenses. Accordingly, an amount of **Rs.10,000/-** has to be deducted. Towards pain and sufferings, an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. In the light of the decision in **United India Insurance Company** _**v**_ **. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 3076** ), the petitioners are not entitled for any amount under the head pain and sufferings. Accordingly, the amount of **Rs.5,000/-** awarded under the said head is to be deducted. Towards loss of love and ## **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015 7** affection, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded and for loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are the wife and son of the deceased. They are entitled for an amount of Rs.80,000/(Rs.40,000x2) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, an amount of **Rs.20,000/-** (1,00,00080,000) has to be deducted from the compensation awarded under the said head. The Apex Court, in **Satinder Kaur** (supra), has held that when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, no separate amount can be awarded under the head loss of love and affection. Accordingly, the amount of **Rs.50,000/-** awarded under the head loss of love and affection has to be deducted. Towards loss of estate, only an amount of Rs 5,000/- has been awarded. The petitioners are entitled for an amount of **Rs.15,000/-** under the head 'loss of estate' following the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). I find that the ## **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015 8** compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.2,31,800/-** as per the table given below:- |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount awarded by Tribunal|Amount modifed by this Court| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of dependency|473200/-|3,06,800/- (added)| |2.|Partial loss of earnings||| |3.|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|| |4.|Extra nourishment||| |5.|Bystander's expenses||| |6.|Damage to clothes|1,000/-|| |7.|Medical expenses||| |8.|Funeral expenses|25000/-|10000/- (deducted)| |9.|Pain and suferings|5000/-|5000/- (deducted)| |10.|Loss of love and afection|50000/-|50,000/- (deducted)| |11.|Loss of consortium|1,00000/-|20,000 (deducted)| |12.|Loss of estate|5,000/-|10000 (added)| |13.|Loss of amenities||| ||Total|Rs.6,64,200/-|Rs.2,31,800| 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum **M.A.C.A.119 of 2015 9** from the date of the petition till realisation and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While calculating the interest, the petitioners will not be entitled for interest for the period of 102 days as per the order dated 19.1.2022 in C.M. Application No.1/2015 in this Appeal. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-+.