High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-05Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation award...

Soopy and Mami v. Darshan Singh Sandhu and Manoj and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Judgment Date: 2022-01-05
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The petitioners are entitled to a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,08,800 under the relevant heads, arising from an increased loss of dependency (Rs. 9,82,800) and adjustments to other heads (consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, etc.). After deducting the Tribunal’s Rs. 5,78,000, an additional Rs. 5,30,800 is awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing until realisation, with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent insurer is to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with 165 days excluded for interest as per the court’s order.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer to deposit within two months; interest and costs as ordered.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Soopy
Mami

Respondents

Darshan Singh Sandhu
Mr. Manoj
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri U.P. Balakrishnan
• Sri K.R. Avinash (Kunnath)

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv M. Jacob Murickan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in O.P. (MV) No.1333/2008 for the death of Thwelheth in a road accident on 6 October 2008. The petitioners, Soopy and Mami, parents of the deceased, challenged the Tribunal’s total compensation of Rs. 5,78,000 on grounds that the deceased’s income should be notionally fixed higher and the head‑wise calculation was inadequate. The driver of the tanker lorry was found negligent; the insurer contested liability and the claimed sums under several heads. The Tribunal disposed of the petition along with O.P.(MV) 1334/2008, reducing or disallowing several heads. The Kerala High Court undertook a de novo reassessment using the principles laid down in recent Supreme Court and High Court precedents to determine appropriate compensation under traditional heads including loss of dependency, future prospects, loss of love and affection, and loss of estate, along with funeral expenses and consortium. Refixing the deceased’s monthly income to Rs.9,100, applying 40% future prospects, and a multiplier of 18 with 50% deduction for personal living expenses, the court recalculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 9,82,800, yielding a total of Rs. 11,08,800. Enhancements were also made to funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium; the court invoked Pranay Sethi and related precedents and, after considering the Supreme Court’s Satinder Kaur pronouncement, held that no further liability exists for a separate head of love and affection. The appeal was disposed of by granting an enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,30,800, with 7.5% interest from petition filing and costs, to be deposited by the insurer within two months, with 165 days excluded for interest as per a court directive.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680
N. Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd (2021 (6) KHC 163)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076]

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Tribunal’s award is grossly inadequate and seek re‑assessment of income for loss of dependency, enhancement for future prospects, and reconsideration of conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium. They rely on Pranay Sethi and follow-on Kerala authority to justify higher compensation and the inclusion of appropriate heads, including a revised consortium award.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents challenge the extent of the enhancement, point to the driver’s negligence and question the claimed sums as excessive; the insurer disputes the driving license validity and the liability matrix; the 1st and 2nd respondents were ex‑parte in the petition, and the insurer resists the proposed uplift in compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pranay Sethi and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to recalibrate income, apply future prospects and determine enhanced compensation under multiple heads.
N. Jayasree and others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd	(2021 (6) KHC 163	Positive	Applied for loss of consortium with an uplift pattern (Rs.40,000 per person, with 10% increment for every 3 years).
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur	AIR 2020 SC 3076	Positive	Cited for the proposition that when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no need to grant separate compensation for loss of love and affection.

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 Soopy and Mami v. Darshan Singh Sandhu and Manoj and New India Assurance 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1333/2008 DATED 26.11.2013 OF THE MOTOR** ## **ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VADAKARA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SOOPY,AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMMAD,NADUVILEKANDIYIL HOUSE, VANIMEL AMSOM,VERKADAVU DESOM,VANIMEL (PO), VATAKARA TALUK** - **2 MAMI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SOOPI, NADUVILEKANDIYIL HOUSE,VANIMEL AMSOM, VERKADAVU DESOM,VANIMEL (PO),VATAKARA TALUK** **BY ADVS. SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** - ***1 DARSHAN SINGH SANDHU C-20/1-4,SECTION 4,PALMBEACH CHS,NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI,THANE,MAHARASHTRA STATE 400 705** - **2 MR.MANOJ, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAM MILAN, TRANSPAR NAGAR,GARAKHPUR , SATAINI BARDAH,AZAMGARH – 400702 [*RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DTD. 13.10.21 IN I.A.NO.1/21]** **3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THANA PO, MAHARASHTRA STATE 400 705** ## **R3 BY ADV M.JACOB MURICKAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..2..** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P. (MV)No.1333/2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. The parties are referred to as per the status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners are the parents of deceased Thwelheth, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 06.10.2008. While the deceased Thwelheth was riding a motor cycle with Aflah as pillion, the motor cycle was hit by a tanker lorry bearing Registration No. MH43-U 2146 driven by the 2[nd] respondent and owned by the 1[st] respondent. Both Thwelheth and Aflah succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident. The 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the said lorry. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation for the death of their son. **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..3..** 3. The claim petition was considered and disposed of along with O.P.(M.V) No. 1334/2008 filed by the parents of deceased Aflah by a common award. The respondents 1 and 2 were set ex-parte. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company contested the claim and filed a written statement contending that the deceased Thwelheth was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and he contributed to the accident. The insurance also contended that the company amounts claimed under various heads are excessive. They, however, admitted that the lorry was insured with them at the time of the accident. 4.The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent, the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,78,000/- as total compensation for the death of Thwelheth under various heads as under: **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..4..** ||Head of claim|Amount claimed (Rs)|Amount Awarded (Rs)|Basis-vital details in a nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|5000|5000|| |2|Extra nourishment|5000|Not allowed|| |3|Damage to clothing & articles|5000|Not allowed|| |4|Funeral expenses|5000|5000|| |5|Loss of estate|5000|5000|| |6|Medical expenses incurred before death|25000|Not allowed|| |7|Loss of love and afection|200000|50000|| |8|Shortened expectation of life|400000|35000|| |9|Loss of support and assistance to the applicants|500000|75000|| |10|Future economic benefts and dependency|600000|378000|| |11|Obseques|50000|25000|| ## **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..5..** |12|Pain and sufering|50000|Not allowed|| |---|---|---|---|---| ||Total|1850000|578000|| 5. According to the petitioners, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is totally inadequate. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-. The deceased was a Computer Science student at the time of the accident. He had not started earning any income at the time of his death. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased as on 2008 has to be fixed notionally and I re-fix the same as Rs.6,500/-. 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed as Rs.9,100/- [6500 + 2600]. Since the deceased was aged 19 years, the multiplier to be adopted is '18'. The deceased being a bachelor, there shall be a deduction of 50% towards personal living expenses. Therefore, **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..6..** the compensation towards loss of dependency is re-calculated as Rs.9,82,800/- [9100 x 12 x 18 x 50/100]. The petitioners are therefore entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.6,04,800/-** (9,82,800-3,78,000) under the head loss of dependency. 6. Towards loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, whereas no amount has been awarded under the head loss of consortium. Following the ratio of the decision in _**v.**_ **National Insurance Company Limited Pranay Sethi and Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** and **N.Jayasree and others** _**v**_ **. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd (2021 (6) KHC 163)** , the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with 10% increase for every 3 years. Accordingly, for loss of consortium, the petitioners are entitled for **Rs.88,000/-** (44,000x2). The Hon'ble **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..7..** Supreme Court has held in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd.** _**v.**_ **Satinder Kaur [AIR 2020 SC 3076],** that, when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, there is no need to award compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head. Since the petitioners are entitled for Rs.88,000/- towards loss of consortium, no further amount is to be awarded under the head loss of love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced amount of **Rs.38,000/-** (88,000-50,000) under the head loss of consortium. 7. Towards funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Going by the principles laid down in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. With an enhancement of 10% for every 3 years, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..8..** Rs.16,500/-(15000+1500) towards compensation for funeral expenses. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.11,500/-** [16,500-5000] under the head funeral expenses. 8.The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/ towards loss loss of estate. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi and Ors.** (supra), the compensation payable under the conventional head of loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/-. The same has to be enhanced on percentage basis, at the rate of 10%, in a span of every three years. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced amount of **Rs.11,500/-** (16500-5000) as loss of estate. compensation under the head 9. The petitioners have been awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards shortened expectation of life and Rs. 25,000/- towards obsequies. I find that no amount **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..9..** can be awarded under the said heads. The petitioners are awarded Rs.75,000/- under the head loss of support and assistance to the applicants. The petitioners are not entitled to compensation under the head loss of support and assistance to the applicants. Therefore, an amount of **Rs.1,35,000/-** [35,000+25,000+75,000] has to be deducted under the said heads. 10. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,08,800/- under the following heads: ||Head of claim|Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs)|Amount awarded by this Court (Rs)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|5000|5000| |2|Extra nourishment|Not allowed|-| |3|Damage to clothing & articles|Not allowed|-| |4|Funeral expenses|5000|16,500| |5|Loss of estate|5000|16,500| **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..10..** |6|Medical expenses incurred before death|Not allowed|-| |---|---|---|---| |7|Loss of love and afection/Consortium|50000|88,000| |8|Shortened expectation of life|35000|Nil| |9|Loss of support and assistance to the applicants|75000|Nil| |10|Future economic benefts and dependency|378000|9,82,800| |11|Obsequies|25000|Nil| |12|Pain and sufering|Not allowed|Nil| ||Total|5,78,000|11,08,800| 11. After deducting the amount of Rs.5,78,000/already awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners will be entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.5,30,800/-** [11,08,800 – 5,78,000] (Rupees Five lakhs thirty thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation **MACA NO. 2190 OF 2014 ..11..** with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While calculating the interest, the period of 165 days shall be excluded as per the direction of this Court in C.M. Application No.1/2014 dated 13.10.2021 in this appeal. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB/06/01/2022