High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-17Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and opera...

Sasi S/o Kuttyappu and others v Absala and Sam and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1810 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Bhadurudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-08-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s Rs.2,62,085 award is replaced with Rs.11,09,600 as compensation, plus 7% interest per annum from the petition date (excluding interest for 1453 days for the appeal). The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.5,096 as additional court fee and to deposit the remaining balance in the appellants’ names in the proportion 50% to the 2nd appellant, 35% to the 1st, and 15% to the 3rd appellant within two months. Final distribution and costs directions issued.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and operative orders as stated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sasi S/o Kuttyappu
Vasantha W/o Sasi
Shimi D/o Sasi

Respondents

Absala
Sam S/o Alexander
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri AVMSalahudin
• SMT.A.D.Divya

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Akhil K.Madhav

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA concerns an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award in O.P.(M.V) No.1154/2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, arising from a 12.02.2009 accident in which a tipper lorry (KL-11V-8023) allegedly hit a bicyclist, Siddhosh, from behind, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants, the deceased’s parents and sister, sought compensation for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and other heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,62,085 with interest at 7%. The appellants argued for (i) applying a higher multiplier of 17 (per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation) since the deceased was about 26 years old per Ext. A2 post‑mortem; (ii) increasing monthly income to Rs.7,000 (as against Rs.3,000 accepted by the Tribunal, following Ramachandrappa); and (iii) adding 40% for future prospects (per Pranay Sethi) since the deceased was under 40. They also claimed Rs.80,000 for loss of consortium (two parents), Rs.15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral, and challenged the inclusion of certain heads of damages (pain and suffering, love and affection) guided by Satinder Kaur. The High Court allowed the appeal, recalculating total compensation at Rs.11,09,600 with 7% interest from the petition date, excluding interest for 1453 days due to the appeal. It directed the insurer to deposit the balance amount, with distribution of sums (50% to the 2nd appellant, 35% to the 1st, 15% to the 3rd) within two months and issued related costs/fees instructions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, Section 173

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802) – multiplier method for calculating compensation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 – income estimation/assessment
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 – 40% addition for future prospects
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur (Satwinder Kaur) (2020) 3 KHC 760 – exclusion/limitation on certain heads of damages

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued for enhancement of compensation by adopting the proper multiplier of 17 (per Sarla Verma) in light of the deceased’s age (26). They urged Rs.7,000 as monthly income (instead of the Tribunal’s Rs.3,000) citing Ramachandrappa. They sought 40% addition for future prospects (per Pranay Sethi), and heads including loss of consortium (Rs.80,000), loss of estate (Rs.15,000), and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000). They contended pain and suffering and love and affection should be considered as per recent precedents but were later restricted by Satinder Kaur. Respondents: The insurer and owner contested aspects of the accident and negligence; the insurer disputed heads of damages and liability under the policy, while the owner contested the accident and negligence as well as the quantum.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contested the quantum and the heads of damages; they disputed negligence and liability and maintained the Tribunal’s structure and compensation to the extent allowed by the policy.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010(2)KLT 802	Positive	Used to justify a multiplier of 17 for age of the deceased per the prevailing rule.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify increasing monthly income estimation to Rs.7,000.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to justify 40% addition for future prospects for a person under 40.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur	(2020) 3 KHC 760	Positive	Cited to support exclusion of certain heads of damages (pain and suffering, love and affection).

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 Sasi S/o Kuttyappu and others v Absala and Sam and Bajaj Allianz General 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 A. BADHARUDEEN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022/26TH SRAVANA, 1944 MACA NO. 1810 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.03.2010 IN OP(MV)NO.1154/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :** 1 SASI, S/O.KUTTYAPPU, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKE KOMALASSERY HOUSE, PALAZHI PAI COMPANY, P.O. GURUVAYOOR APPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. 2 VASANTHA, W/O. SASI, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKE KOMALASSERY HOUSE, PALAZHI PAI COMPANY, P.O. GURUVAYOOR APPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. 3 SHIMI, D/O. SASI, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKE KOMALASSERY HOUSE, PALAZHI PAI COMPANY, P.O. GURUVAYOOR APPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.A.D.DIVYA ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 ABSALA, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.26, A/40, AL AMEEN COLONY, 2ND STREET, COIMBATHORE (OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY.) PIN-641018. 2 SAM, S/O. ALEXANDER, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT 94 KARAMADAI ROAD, METTUPALAYAM. 3 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE. BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV 2 ## **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging award dated 22.03.2010 in O.P.(M.V) No.1154/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, at the instance of the original petitioners. The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein also. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Brief facts of the case: The claimants before the Tribunal raised contention that on 12.02.2009 at about 8:45 p.m., while one Sidhosh was riding a bicycle through the side of road, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-11V-8023 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the bicycle from behind and, consequently, he sustained fatal injuries and he died due to the injuries sustained. According to the appellants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent ## **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** driving of 2[nd] respondent. In this matter, the claimants, who are the parents and sister of the deceased, approached the Tribunal and claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lakh. 1[st] respondent is the owner and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. in this matter, the 3[rd] respondent filed written statement disputing the accident as well as negligence. Claims under various heads were opposed while admitting policy. **==> picture [391 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** statement denying the negligence and highlighting policy to the tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-11V-8023 involved in the accident. 7. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter marking Exts.A1 and A7 on the part of the appellants since no evidence let in by the respondents. **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 8. The Tribunal appraised the evidence and finally granted Rs.2,62,085/- as compensation along with 7% interest. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal taken the age of the parents to fix the multiplier as '13' and proper multiplier is '17', since as per Ext.A2 post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased is shown as 26 years. This submission is not disputed. Therefore, the multiplier applied in this case is '17', following the ratio in [2010(2)KLT 802], Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport corporation. 10. Coming to the monthly income, the Tribunal accepted Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income in a case where the appellants claimed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month as a contract worker under different employees. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant pressed for fixing the monthly income, following 6 ## **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** the ratio in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ : **(2011) 13 SCC 236.** This submission is not disputed. Therefore, Rs.7,000/- is fixed as the monthly income to re-calculate the 'loss of dependency income'. 40% addition also is permissible following the ratio in _**National**_ _**Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi**_ **: (2017)** **16 SCC 680,** since the deceased was aged below 40 years at the time of death. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency income' is re-calculated as under: 7000 + 40% = 9,800x12x17x50% = **9,99,600/-** 12. Apart from that appellants 1 and 2, parents of the deceased, together are entitled to get **Rs.80,000/-** towards, 'loss of consortium' @ Rs.40,000/- each following the ratio in _**Pranay Sethi's**_ case (supra). 13. Similarly, under the heads 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expense' **Rs.15,000/-** each is granted following the ratio in _**Pranay Sethi's**_ 7 ## **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** case (supra). 14. It is noticed further that the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection'. Following the ratio in _**United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur**_ ## **@ Satwinder Kaur and others : 2020 (3) KHC 760,** Rs.20,000/- granted under the heads 'pain and sufferings' and 'love and affection', is not liable to be granted. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellants are entitled to get **Rs.11,09,600/-** (Rupees Eleven Lakh Nine Thousand and Six Hundred Only) as compensation along with interest 7% per annum, to be realised from the 3[rd] respondent, Insurance Company from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding interest for the period of 1453 days in filing this appeal as ordered in the order dated 18.03.2022 in C.M.Application 8 ## **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** No.2062/2014. 16. The appellants valued the claim at Rs.6,00,000/-. In view of grant of Rs.5,09,600/in excess of the claim, the appellants are bound to deposit Rs.5,096/- as additional court fee. The 3[rd] respondent, Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.5,096/- as additional court fee by a separate cheque in favour of M.A.C.T., Kozhikode. The 3[rd] respondent, Insurance Company is further directed to deposit the balance amount in the name of the appellants, in the proportion, viz, 50% in the name of the 2[nd] appellant, 35% in the name of the 1[st] appellant and the remaining 15% in the name of the 3[rd] appellant, within two months from today. On deposit, the appellants are entitled to release the same. **==> picture [36 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** WW ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** **M.A.C.A No.1810 of 2014** 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**:**|**MEMO DATED 27.05.2014 ISSUED TO THE**| |---|---|---| |||**SANTHOSH KUMAR K.P. (ADVOCATE-CLERK) BY**| |||**ADV.RASHMI K.V., PARTNER, BELVERDIA LEGAL**| |||**L.L.P.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**:**|**EXPLANATION DATED 30.05.2014 GIVEN BY**| |||**SANTHOSH KUMAR K.P. TO ADV.RASHMI K.V.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**:**|**THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADV.RASHMI TO ADV.ANIL**| |||**THOMAS, SR.PARTNER BELVERDIA LEGAL L.L.P.,**| |||**COCHIN, WITH A REQUEST TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY**| |||**AGAINST THE ADVOCATE-CLERK.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**:**|**NOTICE DATED 03.06.2014 ISSUED TO THE**| |||**SANTHOSH**<br>**KUMAR**<br>**K.P.,**<br>**ADVOCATE-CLERK**| |||**SUSPENDING HIM BY THE ADV.ANIL THOMAS,**| |||**SR.PARTNER BELVERDIA LEGAL L.L.P., COCHIN.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**:**|**LETTER DATED 04.06.2014 TO THE REGISTRAR**| |||**GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY THE**| |||**ADV.ANIL THOMAS, SR.PARTNER BELVERDIA LEGAL**| |||**L.L.P, COCHIN, INFORMING THE SUSPENSION OF**| |||**THE CLERK AND REQUESTING TO TAKE**| |||**APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ADVOCATE-**| |||**CLERK WHO COMMITTED DERELICTION OF DUTY.**|