High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-24The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

SHEHARBAN and others vs SAINUL ABID K. and National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA 1339 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-08-24
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent of enhancing the compensation as calculated in the accompanying table. The Tribunal’s income fixation is revised by accepting a higher baseline (Rs.10,500) and applying the appropriate future-prospects, with four dependents receiving Rs.40,000 each as consortium. Pain and suffering is eliminated per the Satinder Kaur principle. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.19,66,875 (from Rs.16,03,750). Interest on the enhanced amount is ordered at 6% from the date of petition, with set-off for any pre-paid sums; NEFT/RTGS transfer to the claimant’s bank account within one month after bank details are provided. If the bank details are not provided, no interest shall accrue on the enhanced amount after the stipulated period. If the insurer fails to deposit, interest on the enhanced amount shall run from the petition date at the rate directed by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHEHARBAN
SAFWANUL RASHID K. (MINOR)
SHAMANAD SAHAD K. (MINOR)
AMINA

Respondents

SAINUL ABID K.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR.
• SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
• SMT.K.S.SANTHI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kozhikode in O.P. (MV) No.726 of 2017, challenging the compensation awarded to the appellants, legal heirs of a deceased who succumbed to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. The appellants contend that the Tribunal undervalued several heads of compensation and erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.9,000. They rely on Ramachandrappa to advocate an income of Rs.10,500 per month and urge inclusion of future prospects by applying higher percentages. The deceased, aged around 40 and self-employed, would fall into the 40–50 age slab, where Pranay Sethi prescribes a 25% addition for future prospects (the court notes the 40% provision applicable to those below 40). The appellants also submit that consortium should be extended to all four dependents: the wife, mother, and two minor children, rather than only to the wife. They seek elimination of a Rs.10,000 award for pain and suffering in light of Satinder Kaur’s guidance. The Respondents rely on Pranay Sethi for the 25% future-prospects rule and invoke Satinder Kaur to limit pain and suffering. The Court allows enhancement by recalculating heads, grants Rs.40,000 consortium to each of the four dependents, and deducts the pain-and-suffering award. The total enhanced compensation becomes Rs.19,66,875 with 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date, payable via NEFT/RTGS after bank details are provided.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects in motor vehicle accident compensation governed by Pranay Sethi (40% for below 40; 25% for 40–50)
Elimination/limitation of pain and suffering under Satinder Kaur (2020 SCC Online 410)
Ramachandrappa approach for determining income in self-employed claimants

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.9,000 and press for enhancement to Rs.10,500, relying on Ramachandrappa (2011) to set a higher baseline for income in a self-employed context. They argue the deceased, aged around 40 and self-employed, should receive future-prospects of 40% under Pranay Sethi’s framework, but acknowledge the Court’s sectoral guidance that the 40–50 age slab yields 25%. They insist that four dependents (wife, mother, and two minor children) are entitled to consortium at Rs.40,000 each, not merely the wife. They oppose the Rs.10,000 awarded for pain and suffering, invoking Satinder Kaur to strike it off altogether or reduce it. Overall, they seek recalculation to reflect higher income, appropriate future-prospects, and fuller consortium, resulting in a higher total compensation to be payable by the insurer.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on Pranay Sethi to fix future-prospects at 25% for the 40–50 age slab, aligning with the Supreme Court guidance referenced in the judgment. They contend the Tribunal’s approach was correct in applying the age-based future-prospects framework and urge maintaining the original heads and the calculated totals. On pain and suffering, they cite the Satinder Kaur decision to limit or eliminate this head. They oppose extending consortium beyond the wife, or otherwise contest the extent of dependency-based awards. Overall, their position is to keep the Tribunal’s computation and avoid substantial enhancements to the compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	2011 KHC 4675	Positive	The court followed Ramachandrappa to fix the deceased’s income at Rs.10,500 per year in 2006 terms, establishing a higher baseline for earnings in a self-employed claimant.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)	Positive	The judgment uses Pranay Sethi to apply future-prospects at 25% for the 40–50 age slab and to interpret the four conclusions concerning future prospects.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.	[(2020) SCC Online 410]	Positive	The decision is cited in support of eliminating or restricting pain and suffering awards as per Supreme Court guidance.

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 SHEHARBAN and others vs SAINUL ABID K. and National Insurance Company Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

M.A.C.A.1339/2018 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944** ## **MACA NO. 1339 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 726/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE-III / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - 1 SHEHARBAN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.(LATE) RAFEEQU @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQU, RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631. - 2 SAFWANUL RASHID K. MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS S/O.(LATE) RAFEEQU @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQU, D.O.B. 10.06.2000, RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631. - 3 SHAMANAD SAHAD K. MINOR, AGED 12 YEARS S/O.(LATE) RAFEEQU @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQU, D.O.B. 21.06.2004,RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE,CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631. - 4 AMINA, AGED 70 YEARS W/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT 7/201, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE,CHUNGAM 8/3, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673631. BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - 1 SAINUL ABID K., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, RESIDING AT SABNAZ MANZIL, MELE ALAKKAL PARAMBU, POST VAIDYARANGADI, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE-673633. M.A.C.A.1339/2018 2 2 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR, PARCO TOWERS, P.M.TAJ ROAD, P.B.NO.207, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.1339/2018 3 ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J** **-----------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1339 of 2018 -------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of August, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** **1.** This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kozhikode in O.P. (M.V.)No.726 of 2017. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded under various heads. The victim succumbed to the injuries and the claimants are his legal heirs. **2.** Heard Sri.A.V.M.Salahudheen, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.K.S.Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent/insurance company. Perused the records. **3.** The first point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to the monthly income, which has been reckoned by the Tribunal at @Rs.9,000/-. M.A.C.A.1339/2018 4 Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in **Ramachandrappa** **v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** **[2011 KHC 4675],** where a sum of Rs.10,500/- is seen fixed for the year 2006. This contention of the appellants is liable to be accepted and it is so done. The second aspect canvassed by the learned counsel is with respect to the future prospects. According to the learned counsel, the victim was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and therefore, he is entitled to 40% of the amount reckoned towards future prospects. This contention was opposed by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/insurance company pointing out that, in respect of the slab between 40-50, the percentage to be reckoned is 25%, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]** . This Court has referred to the judgment in _Pranay Sethi,_ wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had recorded its conclusions at paragraph no.61. The fourth conclusion is applicable in the given facts, since the victim was self employed at the time of accident. 40% of the established income is liable to be M.A.C.A.1339/2018 5 reckoned towards future prospects, when the deceased was “below the age of 40 years”. 25% of the income is liable to be reckoned when the deceased was “between the age of 40-50 years”. In the instance case, even according to the appellants/petitioners, the age of the victim was 40 years and therefore, he squarely fall within the slab of 40-50 years, where, 25% of the income is directed to be reckoned towards future prospects in _Pranay Sethi._ This Court finds no error or infirmity in the course adopted by the Tribunal, wherefore, the second contention is rejected. **4.** The third contention is with respect to the grant of consortium, which is extended only to the wife, whereas, the victim was survived by his mother and two children too. This contention of the appellant is liable to be accepted and therefore, all the four dependents are entitled to consortium @Rs.40,000/- each. Simultaneous to the same, as contended by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, a sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards 'pain and suffering' is liable to be obliterated, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in **United India Insurance Company** M.A.C.A.1339/2018 6 ## **Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. [(2021(4) KLT** **S.N.10 (Case No.8) SC = (2020) SCC Online 410)]** . **5.** In the circumstances, this M.A.C.A is allowed and the compensation amount payable to the appellants/petitioners is recalculated as indicated in the table herein. |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the** **Tribunal**|**Total amount after** **enhancement in** **appeal**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings (total)|-|| |2|Loss of earnings (partial)|-|| |3|Transportation Expenses|3,000|3,000| |4|Bystanders Expenses|1,000|1,000| |5|Damage to Clothing|1,000|1,000| |6|Pain and Suffering|10,000|Nil| |7|Loss of dependency|15,18,750|17,71,875 [(10,500x12)+31,500 (25%) x ¾ x 15]| |8|Loss of Consortium|40,000|1,60,000 [40,000x4]| |9|Loss of Estate|15,000|15,000| |10|Loss of Funeral Expenses|15,000|15,000| M.A.C.A.1339/2018 7 ||||| |---|---|---|---| ||Total|16,03,750|19,66,875| |Amount enhanced= Rs.19,66,875 – Rs.16,03,750 =**Rs.3,63,125/**|||| **6** . The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 6% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off.The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. M.A.C.A.1339/2018 8 The appeal is allowed to the above extent. **Sd/-** **C.JAYACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** ``` Sbna/ ```