High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-25Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

Sheeba W/o Late Sebi @ Sebi; Sonia d/o Late Sebi @ Sebi; Silpa aged 17 years (minor represented by Sheeba) v D. Justin Raj and The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA No. 2399 of 2013)

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent as above. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,42,556 with interest at 7.5% per annum, to be deposited by the insurer in the appellants’ bank account in equal shares within two months from receipt of the judgment, after deducting tax, balance court fee, and legal benefit fund liabilities. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer directed to deposit within two months; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sheeba W/o Late Sebi @ Sebi
Sonia D/o Late Sebi @ Sebi
Silpa aged 17 years (minor represented by Sheeba)

Respondents

D. Justin Raj S/o. Devasahayam
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Kodunkulam P.O., Marthandom, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Binoy Ram
• Smt. Sajitha P. Soman

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sarah Salvvy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellants—Sheeba, Sonia, and Silpa (represented by Sheeba)—challenge the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda award in OP(MV) No.1414 of 2008, seeking enhanced compensation for the death of Sebi, a 42-year-old commission agent who died in a road accident on 8 November 2008. The Tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 3,500, despite Ext. A9 showing earnings around Rs. 10,000 per month from jackfruit commissions, a seasonal activity. The insurer argued this figure was not permanent and not dependable as a source of income. The High Court increased the notional income to Rs. 6,500 per month, invoking the principle of future prospects as recognized in Ramachandrappa v. Manager (AIR 2011 SC 2951) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, noting the deceased’s age (42) and self-employment status, thus allowing a 25% addition to arrive at Rs. 8,125 per month. After a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, monthly dependency became Rs. 5,417, and over 14 years the loss of dependency calculated at Rs. 9,10,056. Enhanced sums for funeral, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and loss of estate were computed per Pranay Sethi, totaling Rs. 6,42,556 with 7.5% interest. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount in two months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects in compensation for dependency (as per Pranay Sethi, 2017)
1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses in loss of dependency calculations

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that Ext. A9 shows the deceased’s earnings were around Rs. 10,000 per month, which is not seasonal in nature and could be treated as permanent income. They argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing notional income at Rs. 3,500 and urged Rs. 6,500 as a more realistic monthly earning, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager (AIR 2011 SC 2951) and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to permit a 25% addition for future prospects given the deceased’s age (42) and self-employment status. After applying 1/3 personal expense deduction, dependency would yield Rs. 5,417 per month, translating to Rs. 9,10,056 for 14 years. Funeral, loss of consortium, and loss of estate were adjusted per Pranay Sethi to Rs. 15,000; Rs. 1,02,000 (net after deductions); and Rs. 12,500 respectively, culminating in enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,42,556 with 7.5% interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argued that the income was not stable or permanent as jackfruit collection is seasonal; no other job or alternative evidence was produced to establish a stable income. Consequently, the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs. 3,500 should stand, and the proposed 25% future prospect uplift should not override the lack of a permanent income source. The insurer relied on established precedents and the policy terms, maintaining the award as just and proper.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used to justify the 25% addition for future prospects in the context of a self-employed deceased, enabling enhancement of income for compensation.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited to support the 25% addition for future prospects given the deceased’s age and self-employment status; forms a core basis for enhanced compensation in Pranay Sethi lineage.

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 Sheeba W/o Late Sebi @ Sebi; Sonia d/o Late Sebi @ Sebi; Silpa aged 17 years (minor represented by Sheeba) v D. Justin Raj and The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA No. 2399 of 2013) 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946 MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.1414 OF 2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ``` - **`1 SHEEBA W/O.LATE SEBI @ SEBASTIAN, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL DESOM.`** - **`2 SONIA D/O.LATE SEBI @ SEBASTIAN, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL DESOM.`** - **`3 SILPA AGED 17 YEARS D/O.LATE SEBI @ SEBASTIAN, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SHEEBA, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL DESOM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.BINOY RAM SMT.SAJITHA P.SOMAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 D.JUSTIN RAJ S/O.DEVASAHAYAM, 21-31, VINOORPALANCHI, METHUKUMMAL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN - 629 172.`** - **`2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, KODUNKULAM P.O., MARTHANDOM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN - 629 163.`** ## **`BY ADV SARAH SALVY`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellants herein are the petitioners in OP(MV) No.1414 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. They are impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Sebi, who was a 42 year old commission agent of fruits and vegetables earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. He died in a motor traffic accident occurred on 8/11/2008 at about 6.30 pm, while he was walking by the side of Marthandan- Thakala road. He was knocked down by the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN.75/5605 ridden by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Sri.Sebi sustained serious injuries, and though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the next day. ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 3 ``` 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner cum rider of the offending motorcycle. The 2[nd] respondent is the insurer with which the offending vehicle was insured during the period of accident. The policy is admitted. 4. The appellants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakh. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,68,000/-. 5. Service of notice on the 1[st] respondent was dispensed with by this Court as the 2[nd] respondent/insurer entered appearance, and the policy was not under dispute. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/insurer. 7. The main challenge of the appellants is with respect to the notional income fixed by the Tribunal. The deceased was a 42 year old commission agent of fruits and vegetables earning ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 4 ``` monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as stated in Ext.A9 document. The Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,500/-. Though PW1 was examined to prove Ext.A9 document, that certificate shows that, his earnings was around Rs.10,000/- as commission for jack fruit collection. 8. Learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that, the said income was not acceptable as it was not permanent in nature. As we know, jack fruits are only seasonal, and so the commission for jack fruit collection cannot be taken as a permanent income. The appellants have not shown any other job for the deceased. So, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.6,500/- based on **Ramachandrappa v. Manager,** ## **Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR** **2011 SC 2951]** , as the accident was in the year, 2008. Since he was aged only 42, and was a self employee, going by the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 5 ``` **and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** 25% addition can be given towards future prospects as he was aged below 50 years. So, his monthly income could be calculated as Rs.8,125/- (6500+25%). Since he was having three dependents ie; wife and two children, 1/3rd was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So his monthly income for calculating loss of dependency could be taken as Rs.5417/- (8125-1/3rd). So the loss of dependency can be assessed as Rs.9,10,056/- (5417x12x14). Since the appellants were already paid Rs.3,92,000/-, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.5,18,056/- towards loss of dependency. 9. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. Going by **Pranay Sethi’s case** (supra), the appellants were eligible to get Rs.15,000/-. So, they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 6 ``` 10. Towards loss of consortium the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/-. Going by **Pranay Sethi’s case** (supra) the appellants are entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each amounting to Rs.132,000/- in total. After deducting Rs.15,000/- already awarded, they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.1,17,000/-. If so Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is liable to be deducted. So the appellants are entitled to get Rs.1,02,000/-, towards loss of consortium after deducting Rs.15,000/- which was awarded towards loss of love and affection. 11. Towards loss of estate the tribunal awarded only Rs.2,500/-. Going by **Pranay Sethi’s case** (supra) the appellants are eligible to get 15,000/-, so the balance entitled towards loss of estate is Rs.12,500/-. 12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## to be just and proper and it needs no interference. |Head of claim (1)|Amount awarded by the Tribunal (2)|Amount awarded in appeal (3)||Diference to be drawn as enhanced compensation (5)| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|3,92,000/-|9,09,888/-||5,18,056/-| |Funeral expenses|5,000/-|15,000/-||10,000/-| |Loss of consortium & Loss of love and afection|15,000/- 15,000/-|1,32,000/-||1,02,000/-| |Loss of estate|2,500/-|15,000/-||12,500/-| |Total|Rs.6,42,556/-|||| 13. So the appellants are entitled to get Rs.6,42,556/- as enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%. 14. The 2nd respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account of the appellants in equal share with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of ``` MACA NO. 2399 OF 2013 ``` ``` 8 ``` petition till the date of deposit (excluding 50 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- ska **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE**