Sindhu Sathyanarayanan and Others v. M.S. Purushothaman and Others

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## `MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.02.2015 IN OP(MV)NO.1357/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA] ``` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SINDHU SATHYANARAYANAN, W/O. LATE SATHYA NARAYANAN, KOVILAKAMPARAMBIL, GANDHI NAGAR, KODAKARA. 2MINOR SURYA NARAYANAN, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O. LATE SATHYANARAYANAN, KOVILAKAMPARAMBIL, GANDHI NAGAR, KODAKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, SINDHU SATHYANARAYANAN. ``` ``` 3KAMALAM, W/O. LATE RAMASWAMI ACHARI, KOVILAKAMPARAMBIL, GANDHI NAGAR, KODAKARA, TRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.T.N.MANOJ ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` - `1 M.S.PURUSHOTHAMAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. CAMION TRANSPORT CO, 63, SAJAI RAJ AUTO SERVICE CENTER, VASHI NAKA, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA.` - `2 BIJU, S/O. VARGHESE, THATTAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 645.` - `3 THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, P B NO. 6, 1ST FLOOR, SANTHI PARK, KOLENCHERY - 682 311.` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH THOMAS SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR, SC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` Thewife,childandmotherof Sathyanarayanan – who unfortunately died in a road accident on 27.11.2009, while travelling in a bus owned by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), when it collided with the offending vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner – are the appellants. They impugn the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in OP(MV) No.1357/2010, on the ground that the compensation awarded thereunder is inadequate. 2.Sri.T.N.Manoj – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the primary reason for inadequacy of compensation is that the learned Tribunal has incorrectly adopted the notional income of late Sathyanarayanan as a mere ``` ``` MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` Rs.4,550/-, and that even with 40% future prospects added, it falls woefully short of the standardization postulated by theHonourable Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) ``` ``` 13 SCC 236]. He argued that as per this judgment, the notional income ought to have been ``` ``` taken as Rs.7,000/-, with 40% future prospects added to it. ``` ``` 3.Sri.T.N.Manoj then pointed out that the ``` ``` multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is also in error as per Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [2010 (2) ``` ``` KLT 802];and that the correct one ought to have been ‘15’. He further showed me that the ``` ``` Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,00,000/- towards ‘Loss of Consortium’, when, going byNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], it ought to have been Rs.40,000/- ``` ``` MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` each to his clients. He thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 4.Sri.P.G.Jayasankar – learned Standing ``` ``` Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has not erred in computing the compensation; but, to a pointed question from this Court, conceded that, as per ``` ``` Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income to ``` ``` be taken ought to have been Rs.7,000/- and that ``` ``` 40% future prospects is also deserving to be ``` ``` added to it. He also conceded that the correct multiplier is ‘15’. ``` ``` 5.When I consider the afore rival ``` ``` contentions, on the touchstone of various ``` ``` evidence produced on record – copies of which ``` ``` have been handed over across the Bar by the ``` ``` learned counsel for the parties, with the express consent that it can be acted upon by this Court without dispute – it is rendered ``` ``` MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` indubitable that Ramachandrappa (supra) mandates that the minimum income for the deceased in this Appeal ought to have taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. When one adds 40% future prospects to it, as perPranay Sethi (supra), and multiply it with the correct multiplier, namely 15, after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, ``` ``` again as perPranay Sethi(supra), the compensationeligiblewouldbecome Rs.11,76,000/-,insteadofRs.5,09,600/- ``` ``` granted. ``` ``` 6.Further, Sri.T.N.Manoj is absolutely right when he contends that the compensation for “Loss of Consortium” ought to have been given to all the three appellants; and obviously, they are entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- under such head. ``` ``` 7.That being said, I must offer approval to the argument of Sri.P.G.Jayashankar that the Tribunal could not have granted more than ``` ## `MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015` ``` -6- ``` ``` Rs.15,000/- each under the heads “Funeral ``` ``` Expenses” and “Loss of Estate” [see for support, Pranay Sethi(supra)]; and should not have granted any compensation for “Loss of Love and ``` ``` Affection” {seeUnited India Insurance Company ``` ``` Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur[(2021) ``` ``` 11 SCC 780]}. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, I allow this ``` ``` Appeal in part in the following manner: ``` ``` (a) The compensation for “Loss of ``` ``` Dependency” is enhanced to Rs.11,76,000/- ``` ``` (Rupees eleven lakhs seventy six thousand only) ``` ``` from Rs.5,09,600/-, taking the notional income ``` ``` of the deceased to be Rs.7,000, adding 40% ``` ``` future prospects to it and adopting the ``` ``` multiplier fifteen, with one third being ``` ``` deducted towards his personal expenses. ``` ``` (b)The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Consortium” is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees ``` ``` MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015 ``` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` one lakh twenty thousand only), from ``` ``` Rs.1,00,000/- now awarded by the Tribunal. ``` ``` (c)The compensation for “Funeral Expenses” is reduced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen ``` ``` thousand only), from Rs.25,000/-. ``` - `(d) The compensation under the head “Loss of` - `Estate” is reduced to Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen` ``` thousand only), from Rs.25,000/-. ``` ``` (e) The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Love and Affection” granted by the Tribunal is deleted. ``` ``` (f)In all other heads, the amounts granted ``` ``` by the Tribunal will remain unaltered. ``` ``` Needless to say, the appellants will be at ``` ``` full liberty to recover the compensation, as ``` ``` enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance ``` ``` Company, along with interest at the rate of ``` ``` 7.5%, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is recovered. They will also ``` ``` MACA NO. 2540 OF 2015 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ```