High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-10-10Appeal allowed in part; enhanced total compensa...

Subaida and others v. N.P. Mohammed Akbar and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 833 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim
K.P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2017-10-10
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The High Court recalculates loss of dependency using the deceased’s age (22 years) with multiplier 18, adds 30% for future prospects, and deducts 50% for personal expenses, yielding Rs.6,31,800 before adjustments. After accounting for the Tribunal’s Rs.1,44,000 already awarded and making further adjustments for pain and suffering (Rs.10,000), love and affection (Rs.1,10,000 total with increments to each parent and siblings), and funeral expenses (Rs.22,000), the Court awards a total enhanced compensation of Rs.6,19,800. The insurer must deposit within two months, after which withdrawals can be sought. The enhanced amount is distributed: Rs.10,000 portions of love and affection to appellants 3–8, with the balance to appellants 1–2. There are no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced total compensation Rs.6,19,800; insurer to deposit within two months; enhanced amount distributed among appellants as stated; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subaida
P.P. Abdurahimankutty
P.P. Sameer
P.P. Lubna
P.P. Khayarunnessa
P.P. Muneera
P.P. Noufel (minor)
P.P. Muhaseena (minor)

Respondents

N.P. Mohammed Akbar
Muhammedali A.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri P. Chandrasekhar

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri P. Jayasankar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from MACA No. 833 of 2008 challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV)701/2006 ( Tirur) concerning the death of Abdul Nazar after a jeep collided with the motorcycle he rode on 25.6.2006. The appellants—parents and siblings of the deceased—contend that the Tribunal’s compensation for loss of dependency is severely inadequate and that it erred by not including future prospects and by employing an improper multiplier based on the parents’ ages rather than the deceased’s. They also challenge the awards under other heads as too meager and argue that the death occurred five days after the accident warranting greater funeral expenses and compensation for love and affection. The respondents admit negligence and liability but contest the quantum of compensation. The High Court, relying on settled precedents including Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, holds that future prospects should be added (30%) and that loss of dependency must be calculated using the deceased’s age (22 years) with an appropriate multiplier (18), deducting 50% for personal expenses. It recalculates the figures, awards a further sum for pain and suffering, and–noting the family structure–grants substantial enhancements for love and affection. The appeal is allowed in part, with a total enhanced compensation of Rs.6,19,800 and a distribution plan among appellants, plus directions for deposit by the insurer and no costs overall.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects addition of 30% as a standard for determining compensation
Loss of dependency to be calculated based on the age of the deceased (not dependents) per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
Multiplier method based on the age of the deceased (here, 22 years -> multiplier 18)
50% deduction of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred by inadequately computing compensation under the head of loss of dependency, failed to include future prospects, and used an improper multiplier tied to the parents’ ages rather than the deceased’s age. They asserted that the deceased, a 22-year-old bachelor, contributed to his family and therefore his dependency loss should be calculated on his age, with appropriate addition for future prospects (30%), plus enhanced damages for pain, love and affection, and larger funeral expenses. The loss distribution should reflect the decedent’s family structure, including minors, and the existing award under various heads should be superseded by the revised calculations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents conceded negligence and liability but defended the Tribunal’s quantum, asserting that the award fell within permissible limits and that the heads of damages were properly assessed. They argued against ad hoc enhancements and stressed that the Tribunal’s approach, apart from reasons for any adjustment, did not warrant the proposed large increase. They did not dispute liability; the focus was on the measurement of compensation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Cited as binding authority to justify both the 30% future prospects addition and the age-based dependency calculation; the court explicitly states the decision in Sarla Varma supports these principles.

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 Subaida and others v. N.P. Mohammed Akbar and others 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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939** ## **MACA.No. 833 of 2008 ( )** **------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 701/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED 04-09-2007** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:** **------------------------** ## **1. SUBAIDA, W/O.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, 45 YEARS** **PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **2. P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY** **S/O.KUNHAHAMMEDKUTTY, 52 YEARS, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **3. P.P.SAMEER, 28 YEARS** **S/O.P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **4. P.P.LUBNA, AGED 20** **D/O.P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **5. P.P.KHAYARUNNEESSA, AGED 20 YEARS** **D/O.P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **6. P.P.MUNEERA, AGED 19 YEARS** **D/O.P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **7. P.P.NOUFEL (MINOR) AGED 17 YEARS** **S/O.P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** ## **8. P.P.MUHASEENA, MINOR AGED 13 YEARS** **D/O.P.P.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO. IRINGALLOOR, VIA. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM.** **(APPELLANTS 7 AND 8 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT)** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR** ## **MACA.No. 833 of 2008 ( )** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------** - **1. N.P. MOHAMMED AKBAR, S/O.AHAMMEDKUNHU** - **PALLIKKAT HOUSE, PO KURUKA (VIA) KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM** - **DISTRICT. [DELETED]** - **2. MUHAMMEDALI A., S/O.ABDULLA ANDIYATH HOUSE, THEYYALA, PO NANNAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]** **3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.** - **BRANCH OFFICE, KILIYAMANNIL PLAZA, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **[RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS VIDE ORDER DATED 1.4.2013 IN I.A.NO.906/2013 IN MACA 833/2008]** ## **R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **SHG/** ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.833 of 2008** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Abdul Rehim, J.** Parents and siblings of a person died in a motor vehicle accident, who were claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in OP(MV)701/2006, are the appellants herein, challenging the award based on a contention that the amounts awarded are highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate. Deceased, named Abdul Nazar, met with an accident on 25.6.2006 when a jeep hit against the motorcycle on which he was travelling. He sustained very serious injuries and got admitted in a hospital on the date of accident itself, but succumbed to the injuries on 1.7.2006. In this appeal there is no dispute with respect to the finding of the Tribunal on the aspects of negligence and on the question of liability of the 3[rd] respondent. Appellants contented that the Tribunal went highly erred in awarding only a meagre amount under the head of loss of dependency. It is contented that the M.A.C.A. No.833 of 2008 2 Tribunal failed to add anything towards future prospects. Further it is contented that the multiplier adopted based on the age of the parents, is illegal and improper. The findings to the extent that all the appellants, except the mother of the deceased, were not dependants, is challenged as unsustainable and erroneous. It is also contented that, amounts awarded under other heads are also too insufficient and inadequate. 2. Heard; learned counsel for the appellants and Adv. P. Jayasankar learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent insurance company. 3. The occupation of the deceased as well as his income were proved before the Tribunal through production of Ext.A11 certificate, which was marked by examination of PW3. The deceased was at the age of 22 years at the time of death. The Tribunal missed to consider anything towards future prospects in his carrier. We are of the opinion that, based on settled legal precedents, 30% addition towards future prospects is justifiable and reasonable. It now M.A.C.A. No.833 of 2008 3 remains settled through the decision in **Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)** that loss of dependency need to be calculated based on the age of the deceased and not based on the age of the dependants. Considering that the deceased was aged 22 years, the correct multiplier which need to be adopted is '18'. It cannot be said that the deceased was not contributing anything towards his family, to his parents and siblings, especially when two of them are minors. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard do not have any basis. Since the deceased was a bachelor aged 22 years, 50% of his income need to be deducted towards personal expenses. Considering all the above aspects mentioned above, we are inclined to rework and refix the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency at Rs.6,31,800/- [4500+30%x12x18x½]. After deducting the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- awarded under that head, the appellants are entitled for an enhancement of Rs.4,87,800/-. Evidently the death occurred after five days of the accident. M.A.C.A. No.833 of 2008 4 We are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.5,000/awarded towards pain and sufferings is on the lower side. We are inclined to grant a further sum of Rs.10,000/- on that count. The Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. It is to be noted that the parents have lost their son, who was at the age of 22. It is also a fact that all the siblings have lost their brother. Therefore the appellants need to be compensated reasonably under the head of loss of love and affection. We are inclined to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to both the parents and Rs.10,000/- each to all other siblings. Thus we refix total compensation under the head of loss of love and affection at Rs.1,10,000/-, which will entitle the appellants for an enhancement of Rs.1,00,000/-. The amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is highly inadequate. We are inclined to grant a further sum of Rs.22,000/- on that count. We do not find any ground warranting interference with respect to the amounts awarded under other heads. Thus we hold that the M.A.C.A. No.833 of 2008 5 appellants will be entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.6,19,800/-. 4. Hence, the above appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal will stand enhanced by a further sum of Rs.6,19,800/- (Rupees six lakhs nineteen thousand eight hundred only). The said amount will carry interest at the same rate as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till realisation. We notice that, the amount already awarded by the Tribunal is allotted to the 1[st] appellant, who is the mother of the deceased. Out of the enhancement now granted Rs.10,000/- each (portion of the compensation awarded under the head of love and affection) along with the interest due thereon, shall be allotted to appellants 3 to 8. The balance amount shall be equally apportioned among the appellants 1 & 2. 5. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to M.A.C.A. No.833 of 2008 6 observe that, on such deposit the appellants will be entitled to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders thereon. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE** Sd/- **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE** //True copy// **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE** P.A. TO JUDGE shg/