High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-25Appeal partly allowed.

Shakeela and Others v. A. Shaju, Rajeesh and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.674 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-02-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The High Court recalculated compensation using a correct multiplier (13) and 1/4th deduction for dependency, corrected funeral expenses to Rs.15,000, and adjusted heads for love and affection (Rs.40,000 per claimant for the three children) and loss of consortium (Rs.40,000). It applied the Pranay Sethi framework for need-based head allowances and arrived at a total entitlement of Rs.8,94,128/- with interest at 7% from the date of application.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shakeela
Sameena
Sahitha
Jameensha

Respondents

A. Shaju
Rajeesh
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Shri U. Balagangadharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. George Cherian Sr.
• Adv. Latha Susan Cherian
• Adv. K. S. Santhi
• Adv. George Cherian (Sr.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) vide MACA No. 674 of 2014 from Kerala High Court, challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad award in OPMV 1082/2010 dated 23-07-2013, on the death of Abdul Majeed, a government Class-IV employee aged about 46. The appellants—Shakeela (wife) and her children Sameena, Sahitha, and Jameensha—seek higher compensation for the death of Abdul Majeed in a road accident involving a motorcycle. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.9,64,382; the appellants challenged several heads, especially the quantum of dependency compensation and the multipliers used. The Insurance Company urged application of the Supreme Court’s Sarla Verma guidance (2010 (2) KLT 802), limiting the multiplier to 13 and applying a 1/4th deduction on dependency. The court, however, also invokes the Pranay Sethi decision (National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662) in addressing head-of-claim enhancements for love and affection and related heads. The High Court recalculated several heads: increasing dependency using a correct multiplier and 1/4th deduction, correcting funeral expenses to Rs.15,000, and allowing Rs.40,000 each to the three children for love and affection, while reducing the loss of consortium to Rs.40,000. The aggregate entitlement becomes Rs.8,94,128 with interest at 7% from the date of application, and the appeal is partly allowed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in applying the wrong multiplier for calculating loss of dependency and urged use of multiplier 13 (as per the Supreme Court guidance in Sarla Verma) with a 1/4th deduction. They sought reassessment of loss of dependency and re-calibration of other heads: funeral expenses (seeking Rs.15,000), and enhanced awards for loss of love and affection (Rs.40,000 per claimant for the three children) and loss of consortium, aligning with Pranay Sethi principles (2017) for reasonable heads of compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer’s counsel urged applying the Sarla Verma multiplier of 13 with 1/4th deduction for dependency, arguing that the Tribunal’s calculations were incorrect. They supported the use of leading precedents (Sarla Verma and later Pranay Sethi) to determine appropriate compensation heads, including the assessment of dependency, loss of love and affection, and other heads, and urged to maintain proportionality with established appellate standards. The respondent also contested the exact quantum to be awarded under several heads but acknowledged the need to follow Supreme Court jurisprudence for multiplier selection and enhancement norms.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another	2010 (2) KLT 802	Positive	Used to justify the correct multiplier (13) for determining loss of dependency.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4)KLT662	Positive	Applied to support higher awards for loss of love and affection and related heads under Pranay Sethi principles.

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 Shakeela and Others v. A. Shaju, Rajeesh and Reliance 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.674 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1082/2010 DATED 23-07-2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/S:** |**1**|**SHAKEELA**| |---|---| ||**AGED 43 YEARS**| ||**W/O.LATE ABDUL MAJEED,**| ||**SAITH MANZZIL,**| ||**VALIYACHALLA GOVINDAPURAM POST,**| ||**MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD - 678 507.**| ||**(1ST PETITIONER IS THE WIFE OF DECEASED ABDUL MAJEED)**| |**2**|**SAMEENA**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS**| ||**D/O.LATE ABDUL MAJEED,**| ||**SAITH MANZIL,**| ||**VALIYACHALLA GOVINDAPURAM POST,**| ||**MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD - 678 507.**| |**3**|**SAHITHA**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**D/O.LATE ABDUL MAJEED,**| ||**SAITH MANZZIL,**| ||**VALIYACHALLA GOVINDAPURAM POST,**| ||**MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD - 678 507.**| |**4**|**JAMEENSHA**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**S/O.LATE ABRUL MAJEED,**| ||**SAITH MANZIL, VALIYACHALLA,**| ||**GOVINDAPURAM POST, MUTHALIMADA,**| ||**PALAKKAD - 678 507**| ||**(2ND TO 4TH APPELLANTS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE**| ||**DECEASED ABDUL MAJEED)**| ||**BY ADV. SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN**| MACA.No.674 OF 2014 2 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**A.SHAJU**| |---|---| ||**AGED 29 YEARS**| ||**S/O.ABDUL KARIM,**| ||**THEMBARAMADA POST, KUTTIPPALAM,**| ||**CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 101**| ||**(R.C OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE TN-37AC-7790)**| |**2**|**RAJEESH**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O.PONNAN,**| ||**THEMBARAMADA POST, KUTTIPALAM, CHITTUR,**| ||**PALAKKAD -678 101 (RIDER OF MOTORCYCLE TN-**| ||**37AC97790)**| |**3**|**RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.**| ||**1ST FLOOR, GEEJAY ARCADE,**| ||**THIRUVENKATASWAMY ROAD WEST,**| ||**R.S.PURAM, COIMBATURE - 641 002,**| ||**(INSURER OF MOTORCYCLE TN-37AC-7790)**| ||**POLICY NO.1202792312015189 VALID**| ||**W.E.F 12/09/2009 TO 11/9/2010.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI**| ||**R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)**| ||**SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.No.674 OF 2014 3 ## **`P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J`** ## **`---------------------------------------`** ## **`M.A.C.A. No. 674 of 2014 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of February 2021`** ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Majeed who died in a motor accident. The 1[st] appellant is the wife and appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. ``` ``` 2. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased was a Class-IV employee of the Government of Kerala at the time of accident. He was aged 46 years at the time of accident. He was proceeding to Pudunagaram on his motor cycle along Kollengode-Pudunagaram road. At about 12.45 p.m on 13.05.2010, a motor cycle hit against his vehicle as a result of which he was thrown on to the road. He succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. ``` `3. To substantiate the case, PW1 was examined on` `the side of the claimants and exhibits A1 to A13 were` MACA.No.674 OF 2014 4 ``` marked on the side of the claimants. Exhibit X1 and X2 are also marked as Court exhibits. After going through the evidence and testimonies, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 9,64,382/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Two only). ``` `4. The amount claimed and amount allowed by the` ``` Tribunal is as follows:- ``` |**`Sl.`** **`No.`**| **`Head under which`** **`compensation is`** **`claimed`**|**`Amount`** **`claimed`**|**`Amount`** **`allowed`**|**`Basis on`** **`which`** **`allowed/disall`** **`owed with`** **`reasons in a`** **`nut-shell`**|| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |`1.`|`Loss of earnings`|`Rs.15,000`|||| |`2.`|`Partial loss of earnings`||||| |`3.`|`Medical expenses`|`Rs.15,000`|`Rs.11,494`|`Exts. A12` `series`|| |`4.`|`Bystander expenses`||||| |`5.`|`Damage to clothing` `etc.`|`Rs.2,000`|||| |`6.`|`Transportation`||||| |`7.`|`Extra-nourishment`|`Rs.5,000`|||| |`8.`|`Pain and suffering`|`Rs.30,000`|||| |`9.`|`Loss of love and` `affection`|`Rs.50,000`|`Rs.25,000`||| |`10. `|`Loss of consortium`|`Rs.30,000`|`Rs.10,0000`||| |`11. `|`Loss of estate`||`Rs.5,000`||| |`12. `|`Loss of` `dependency/economic` `benefts`|`Rs.20,00,000`|`Rs.7,97,888`|`14248x2/3x12` `x7`|| MACA.No.674 OF 2014 5 |`13. `|`Loss of amenities and` `conveniences of life`|||| |---|---|---|---|---| |`14. `|`Loss of earning power`|||| |`15. `|`Funeral expenses`|`Rs.10,000`|`Rs.25,000`|| |`16. `|`Disfgurement/` `deformity`|||| |`17. `|`Any other head`|`Rs.2,25,000`||| ||**`Total`**|**`Rs.20,000,00`**|**`Rs.9,64,382`**|**`9% p.a`** **`interest from`** **`the date of`** **`petition`**| `5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation` `awarded, this appeal is filed.` `6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and` `the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent.` `7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted` `that he is aggrieved because, a wrong multiplier is taken for deciding loss of dependency. The learned counsel submitted that deceased was aged 46 years and the correct multiplier is 13.` `8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company` `submitted that the multiplier can be decided based on the decision of the Apex Court in` **`Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2)`** MACA.No.674 OF 2014 6 ``` KLT802]. As per the decision cited above, the correct multiplier is 13. If that is the case, the calculation for loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal is not correct. From the above amount, 1/4th is to be deducted. ``` ``` Therefore, the amount for loss of dependency can be reassessed like this:- ``` ``` i.e., 14248x12x13x3/4 = Rs.16,67,016/-. ``` ``` 9. As far as the funeral expense is concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-. That is wrong. The appellants are entitled only an amount of Rs.15,000/-. ``` ``` 10. For loss of love and affection, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each in the light of the ``` ``` Apex Court decision inNational Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay sethi [2017(4)KLT662],I find justification in the same. Therefore the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each (40,000x3=Rs.1,20,000/-). The amount already awarded is to be reduced and the balance will be ``` MACA.No.674 OF 2014 7 ``` Rs.95,000/-. ``` ``` 11. As far as the loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to me the same is not correct. The appellants are entitled only Rs.40,000/-. ``` ``` 12. Therefore, amount that is entitled by the appellants are as follows:- ``` |**`Sl.`** **`No.`**|**`Head under which`** **`compensation is`** **`claimed`**|**`Enhanced amount`** **`(in Rs.)`**|**`Reduced`** **`amount`** **`(in Rs.)`**|| |---|---|---|---|---| |`1`|`Loss of love and` `affection`|**`95,000`** `(1,20,000-25,000)`||| |`2`|`Loss of dependency`|**`8,69,128`** `(16,67,016-7,97,888)`||| |`3`|`Funeral Expenses`||`10,000`|| |`4`|`Loss of consortium`||`60,000`|| ||**`Total`**|**`Rs.9,64,128/-`**|**`Rs.70,000/-`**|| ||**`Total amount entitled`** **`by the appellants`**|**`964128-70000=`** **`Rs. 8,94,128/-`**||| ``` Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled to the appellants is Rs.8,94,128/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight). ``` ``` Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the ``` MACA.No.674 OF 2014 8 ``` appellants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,94,128/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of application. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` **avs**