Soniaymma Mathew & others v. Pandi Raja @ Raju & others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
A.M.BABU
Judgment Date: 2017-03-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 28,95,054 stands and is upheld.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal’s award stands.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SONIAYMMA MATHEW
XAVIER MATHEW
JIMCYMOL
JITTY MATHEW
ROSAMMA SAURIAR
DEVASSIA SAURIAR

Respondents

PANDI RAJA @ RAJU
JALEEL
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil)
• A.R.Dileep
• Manu Sebastian
• P.J.Joe Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• John Joseph Vettikad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from an award by the Tribunal in a fatal-accident case involving a motorcyclist who died on 7 July 2011 on the Kollam–Alappuzha highway. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased, challenged the Tribunal’s total compensation of Rs. 28,95,054 against their claim of Rs. 20,50,000, arguing the award did not adequately reflect their loss and the correct application of the law. The Tribunal accepted the deceased’s monthly salary of Rs.16,221 and applied the standard approach under the Motor Vehicles Act: future prospects of 30%, deduction of one-fourth for personal expenses, and a multiplier based on age (14, as the deceased had crossed 40). Consequently, loss of dependency was fixed at Rs. 26,57,054, along with other heads such as love and affection, funeral expenses, and medical etc., totaling Rs. 28,95,054. The appellants argued for a higher multiplier (15) citing Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma, but the Kerala High Court held that once the age boundary is crossed, multiplier 14 remains applicable and distinguished the Shashikala ruling. They also pressed for enhanced damages under love and affection; however, relying on Jyni & Others v. Raphel P.T & Another, the High Court held the cap at Rs. 1,00,000 for love and affection. The Court concluded the Tribunal’s award was just under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and dismissed the appeal."

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, Section 168

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal committed error in applying a multiplier of 14; they rely on Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150 to assert that a higher multiplier (15) should be adopted, especially since the deceased was above 40 years. They challenge the quantum under the head of love and affection, arguing for a more favorable distribution among claimants, and seek a reassessment of future prospects and dependency. They also point to the absence of cross-examination and argue that the Tribunal should have considered more evidence than Exts. A1–A9.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/insurer defend the Tribunal’s computation, asserting that the multiplier of 14 is correct given the deceased crossed 40. They contend Shashikala does not apply to this case, and the Court rightly distinguishes it. They submit the award under love and affection is within permissible limits, citing Jyni & Others v. Raphel P.T & Another to justify the Rs. 1,00,000 cap and maintain that the settled principles under Section 168 have been followed.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	2013 (3) KLT 89 [SC]	Positive	Court adopted the principle of 30% future prospects from the Supreme Court decision.
Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma	(2015) 9 SCC 150	Distinguished	Court held that this decision does not apply to determine the multiplier beyond 40 years; therefore, it distinguished the ruling.
Jyni & Others v. Raphel P.T & Another	2016 (2) KHC 870	Positive	Cited to support the cap of Rs.1,00,000 on the head of love and affection.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/8TH CHAITHRA, 1939 ## MACA.No. 822 of 2017 ------------------------ ## APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- ## 1. SONIAYMMA MATHEW VELUTHURUTHAL HOUSE, MUTTAR PO., ALAPPUZHA ## 2. XAVIER MATHEW VELUTHURUTHAL HOUSE MUTTAR PO., ALAPPUZHA ## 3. JIMCYMOL VELUTHURUTHAL HOUSE MUTTAR PO., ALAPPUZHA ## 4. JITTY MATHEW VELUTHURUTHAL HOUSE MUTTAR PO., ALAPPUZHA ## 5. ROSAMMA SAURIAR ## VELUTHURUTHAL HOUSE MUTTAR PO., ALAPPUZHA ## 6. DEVASSIA SAURIAR ## VELUTHURUTHAL HOUSE MUTTAR PO., ALAPPUZHA BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- ## 1. PANDI RAJA @ RAJU GEETHAPURAM, ARIAYANKAVU PO., KOLLAM PIN-691309 -2- ## MACA.No. 822 of 2017 ## 2. JALEEL TRANSPORTING CONTRACTOR, INDIA CEMENTS, ICC COMPLEX, SANKARS NAGAR, THIRUNELVELY PIN-627001 ## 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH PIN-688001 BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & A.M.BABU, JJ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. 822 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 29[th] March, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ramachandra Menon, J. - 1.The loss of life compensated by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs.28,95,054/-, as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/-, is stated as a meagre amount and hence the challenge in this appeal. 2.The appellants were the claimants before the Tribunal and the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KL 13/872 along the Kollam-Alappuzha highway on 7.7.2011. At about 3.00 pm, when he reached the place of occurrence, a lorry bearing No.TN.72 AE/4421 driven by the 1[st] respondent, owned by the 2[nd] respondent and insured by the 3[rd] respondent came in the same direction and knocked him down causing fatal injuries leading to his death occurred on the same day. This was **MACA.822/17** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking a total sum of Rs.20,50,000/- under different heads. - 3.It was contended by the claimants that the deceased was working as 'Peon' on a monthly salary of Rs.16,221/- and he had crossed the age of 40 years. Respondents 1 & 2 did not choose to contest the matter and hence they were set ex parte. A written statement was filed by the 3[rd] respondent/Insurer admitting the policy, but disputing the negligence and quantum. - 4.No oral evidence was adduced from either side. The only evidence before the Tribunal consists of Exts.A1 to A9. Based on the available materials, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and proceeded to work out the compensation. 3 ## **MACA.822/17** 5.Though nobody was examined from the part of the claimants, the Tribunal virtually accepted the entire figures proposed by the claimants with regard to the age, income and such other aspects. The total salary drawn as Rs.16,221/per month was accepted by the Tribunal and following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89 [SC]), 30% was added towards future prospects. 1/4[th] of the said amount was deducted towards the personal expenses and the extent of monthly contribution to the family was fixed as Rs.12,166/-. Finding the admitted fact that the deceased had crossed the age of 40 years, the appropriate multiplier was taken as '`14' and the 'loss of dependency' was fixed at Rs.26,57,054/-. - 6.The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as given below : **MACA.822/17** 4 |Head|Amount claimed (in<br>Rs.)|Amount awarded (in<br>Rs.)| |---|---|---| |Transportation|2000|3000| |Funeral expenses|10000|25000| |Extra nourishment|3000|--| |Love and affection|20000|1,00,000| |Loss of estate|15000|---| |Bystanders expense|----|----| |Medical Bills|---|----| |Damage to clothes|1000|----| |Pain & sufferings|30000|10000| |Loss of dependency|1950000|2657054| |Loss of consortium|20000|100000| |Ambulance charge|5000|---| |Misc. expenses|10000|---| |Total (limited to Rs.2050000)||2895054| 7.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance of the claimants are twofold. The first one is that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier '15', instead of '14'. Reliance is sought to be placed on paragraph 16 of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in Shashikala and Others v. Gangalakshmamma ((2015) 9 SCC 150), which is extracted below : **MACA.822/17** 5 “Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident, ie., 14.12.2006 the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of '14' which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.16,82,310/-.” On going through the said verdict, this Court is of the view that the said decision does not come to the rescue of the appellants/petitioners as to any declaration of law to the effect that, even if a person has crossed the age of 25, 30, 35, 40 as the case may be, the appropriate multiplier has to be reckoned as applicable upto reaching that age. The admitted fact remains that the deceased has crossed the age of 40 years and he was running on 41 years. The higher multiplier '15' is applicable only upto the stage of reaching 40 years. Since the deceased had crossed the age of 40, the appropriate multiplier can only be '14' and not '15'. The course pursued by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. **MACA.822/17** 6 8.The other contention pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, altogether six claimants were there and as such, the compensation for loss of 'love and affection' awarded by the Tribunal fixing the same as Rs.1,00,000/- requires modification/enhancement. This Court does not find any pith or substance in the said submission by virtue of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89). The Award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of the law, keeping the proper track. The legal position has been considered, analyzed and appreciated by this Court as well, as per the verdict passed in Jyni & Others v. Raphel P.T & Another (2016 (2) KHC 870) - to which one of us [PRRM(J)] was also a member; holding that the maximum amount payable under the head 'loss of love & affection' is of Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court finds that the Award passed by the Tribunal granting the total sum of 7 ## **MACA.822/17** Rs.26,57,054/- as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/- is of course a 'Just' Award in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Judge** **Sd/A.M.BABU Judge** Mrcs/31.3 //True copy// P.S to Judge