Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation wi...

Sudha, Gangabai, Anandan, Bindu and Sindhu v. The New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1399/2008

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.T.RAVIKUMAR
  • K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
Judgment Date
2016-11-11
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal partly allowed. The court re-assessed compensation by fixing the monthly income at Rs.4,000, applying a 16-year multiplier, and deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, resulting in loss of dependency of Rs.5,12,000. The Tribunal’s award of Rs. 2,88,000 under that head was deemed insufficient and was increased by Rs.2,24,000. Following Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, the court ordered an additional Rs.3,34,000 for funeral, loss of consortium, and love-and-affection heads. It specified Rs.10,000 each for appellants 3–5; Rs.85,000 for the widow’s loss of consortium; and Rs.5,000 each for appellants 3–5 under love and affection, with the balance to be distributed between the widow and mother in a 2:1 ratio. Interest at 8% from the petition date, with disallowance of 214 days’ interest, was awarded. The third respondent insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months. There is no order as to costs. The judgement clarifies the enhanced amount and allocation for dependents, and directs compliance within the specified period.
Final Disposition
Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation with revised heads of damages, mandatory deposit by insurer within three months, and no costs to either party.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sudha
  • Gangabai
  • Anandan
  • Bindu
  • Sindhu

Respondents

  • The New India Assurance Company Limited, Irinjalakuda

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.P.S.Appu
  • • Sri.Jibu P Thomas
  • • Sri.T.C.Sureh Menon

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt.A.Sreekala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from the Kerala High Court’s review of a Tribunal award under OP(MV) No. 484/2002 concerning the death of Ajith Kumar in a road traffic accident on 14 December 2001. The appellants—widow, mother and siblings—argue that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, erred in fixing the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,75,950 with 7% interest, but the appellants sought enhancement. The insurer admitted liability though contending that Ext. A8 salary evidence was not properly proved and that the income was not established; the Tribunal’s monthly income was notionally set at Rs. 2,000. The High Court undertook a reassessment, noting that the deceased was aged about 31, held a driving licence for heavy vehicles, and had Ext. A8 showing earnings; applying Ramachandrappa, Sarla Varma and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, the court fixed a notional monthly income of Rs. 4,000, adopted a multiplier of 16, and applied a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. The court recalculated loss of dependency to Rs. 5,12,000 and granted additional sums for funeral, loss of consortium, and love and affection, totalling Rs. 3,34,000. Interest at 8% was ordered, with a 214-day delay disallowed for interest, and deposits to be made within three months. The award was partly enhanced, with careful apportionment among appellants and a specific allocation to the widow for loss of consortium; costs were stayed. The decision reflects a principled correction of the Tribunal’s calculation by aligning with SC precedents on income, multiplier, and heads of damages.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Notionally fixed monthly income for calculation of compensation (Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236)
  • Multiplier principle for determining compensation in motor-accident cases (Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC))
  • Dependents' jurisprudence: focus on number of dependents and personal expenses deduction (Sarla Varma)
  • Guidelines for head of damages in motor-accident claims: funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC))
  • 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses in loss of dependency calculation (Sarla Varma)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 2,000 for calculation, ignoring the fact that Ajith Kumar held a driving licence to operate heavy vehicles and had Ext. A8 salary evidence. They contended that the income and occupation were not satisfactorily established before the Tribunal, but that the deceased’s capacity and earnings should be treated with the appropriate notional standard, taking into account his age (31 years) and potential earnings. Relying on Ramachandrappa (2011), Sarla Varma (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (SC), they urged fixation of Rs. 4,000 as notional monthly income and application of a 16-multiplier with 1/3 personal expenses deduction, resulting in higher dependency loss. They also urged upward revision of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and love-and-affection awards, and claimed entitlement to interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date at 8%, with appropriate adjustments for delay.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s award was adequate and that the appellants failed to prove higher income or actual higher expenses. They argued that the evidence did not establish a higher monthly income, and even if the deceased was licensed to drive heavy vehicles, this did not automatically translate into higher earnings in the given period. They maintained that the Tribunal’s approach and the heads of compensation were appropriate and supported by the material on record. They relied on the Tribunal’s assessment and urged that there was no legal necessity to disturb the award, emphasizing that the petition did not demonstrate compelling reasons to deviate from the Tribunal’s figures or to apply the higher multiplier or notional income over the time frame involved.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2011) 13 SCC 236]PositiveUsed to justify fixing a notional monthly income (4,000) for calculation; follows the principle from Ramachandrappa.
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation(2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC))PositiveApplied multiplier framework and dependent-deduction principles; used to fix multiplier and 1/3 deduction.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh(2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC))PositiveGuided enhancement of funeral, loss of consortium, and minimum spouse compensation; adopted for extra heads.

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 Sudha, Gangabai, Anandan, Bindu and Sindhu v. The New India Assurance Company Limited 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.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **MACA.No. 1399 of 2008 ( ) --------------------------** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO. 484/2002 of MACT,THRISSUR DATED 24-03-2007** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:** **------------------------** ## **1. SUDHA, W/O. AJITHKUMAR.** **2. GANGABAI, W/O. LATE KUMARAN.** ## **3. ANANDAN, S/O. LATE KUMARAN.** ## **4. BINDU, D/O. LATE KUMARAN.** ## **5. SINDHU, D/O. LATE KUMARAN** **(ALL ARE RESIDING AT PARAVATTANI VEETIL,, P.O. KOLAZHI, THRISSUR)** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------** **1. E.T. JOSE, S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT ELLIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. ANANDAPURAM,, PUDUKKAD,THRISSUR DT. [DELETED]** **2. RAJESH, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MULLASSERY VEETIL, P.O. ANANDAPURAM,, PUDUKKAD,** **THRISSUR DT. [DELETED]** **MACA NO.1399/2008 2** **[RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 02/09/2016 IN IA.2670/16 IN M.A.C.A 1399/08.]** ## **3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY** **LIMITED, IRINJALAKUDA.** **R3 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **M.A.C.A.No.1399 OF 2008** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11[th] day of November, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ravikumar, J. The legal heirs of a victim of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.12.2001 preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.484/2002. The said claim petition was filed seeking a total compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for the death of one Ajith Kumar. The claimants/appellants are his widow, mother and siblings. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by both sides and the documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A10 on the side of the appellants and Ext.B1 on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,75,950/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. As noticed hereinbefore, it is seeking MACA No.1399/2008 2 further enhancement of quantum of compensation that the captioned appeal has been preferred. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Insurance Company and also perused the evidence on record as also the impugned judgment, carefully. There is no dispute regarding the accident, cause of the accident as the negligence of the second respondent who was driving the lorry involved in the accident as also the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured owner of the said offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It is to be noted that respondents 1 and 2 were already deleted from the array of parties. Thus it is obvious that the only question for consideration is with respect to the entitlement of the appellants for enhanced compensation. Hence we are of the view that this appeal itself can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal disregarded many relevant factors while fixing the monthly income and the erroneous fixation of the monthly income resulted in MACA No.1399/2008 3 granting of inadequate compensation. The accident occurred on 14.12.2001 and the deceased was then aged only 29 years. Ext.A7 would reveal that he was then holding a driving licence to drive heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles and Ext.A8 is the salary certificate. On the strength of Ext.A8, it is claimed in the claim petition that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that though Ext.A8 was produced, the appellant had not proved the same by examining the person who issued the same. In other words, it is submitted that though the appellants had succeeded in showing that the deceased was authorised to drive heavy goods and passenger vehicles, the averments regarding occupation and income was not actually established. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal erroneously identified the multiplier. It is submitted that Ext.A7 itself would reveal that the date of birth of the deceased was 14.5.1970. Thus, it is obvious that on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 31 years. With reference to his age on the date of the accident, the multiplier ought to have been MACA No.1399/2008 4 16, it is contended. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that a perusal of the schedule of compensation granted would reveal that the compensation granted for loss of consortium and the amount granted towards funeral expenses are unreasonably low and they require upward modification. It is also submitted that the Tribunal granted only paltry amount towards loss of love and affection. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that a mere glance at the schedule would reveal that the appellants were adequately compensated under all heads and that no reason has been brought out by the appellants for appellate interference. 7. Upon hearing the rival contentions, we are of the view that there is force in the contentions of the learned counsel that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly income. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally for calculation purpose only at Rs.2,000/-. True that though the appellants had succeeded in establishing that the deceased was holding a driving licence to drive heavy goods and heavy MACA No.1399/2008 5 passenger vehicles, the appellants had failed to establish occupation and income of the deceased. But at the same time, we are of the view that two aspects have to be considered while fixing the monthly income of the deceased for calculation purpose. The Apex Court in the case of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2004 fixed the monthly income notionally for calculation purpose at Rs.4,500/- ( see the decision in **Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [( 2011) 13 SCC 236]** ). True that the accident involved in this case occurred about three years prior to the accident involved in **Ramachandrappa's** case. But at the same time, it is to be noted that on the date of the accident, the deceased was holding a licence to drive heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles. The deceased was aged only 31 years. Taking into account all such aspects, we are of the view that it is only proper and just to fix the monthly income for calculation purpose notionally at Rs.4,000/-. It is accordingly fixed. 8. Now we will consider the question whether the Tribunal MACA No.1399/2008 6 has properly identified the multiplier. As noticed hereinbefore, Ext.A7 would reveal that the date of birth of the deceased was 14.05.1970. Thus, it is obvious that on the date of the accident, he was aged 31 years. In such circumstances, in the light of the schedule given in **Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2010 (2 ) KLT 802 (SC)** , the proper multiplier is 16. Though there are five applicants, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Sarla Varma's** case, what matters is not the number of the applicants, but the number of dependents. Evidently, the appellants 3 to 5 are all elders to the deceased. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the first and second appellants who are respectively the widow and mother of the deceased alone need be treated as dependents for calculation. In such circumstances, 1/3 of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Reckoning the aforesaid factors, the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency has to be re-assessed. On such re-assessment, the appellants would be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.5,12,000/- ( 4000 x 12 x 16 x 2/3). The Tribunal has already granted an amount of Rs.2,88,000/-. After deducting the MACA No.1399/2008 7 said amount, the appellants would be entitled to get Rs.2,24,000/additionally under that head. It is granted. 9. In the light of the decision in **Rajesh v.Rajbir Singh ( 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)** , the appellants are entitled to get enhancement of the amount granted under the heads expenses for funeral and loss of consortium. Going by the said decision, in the absence of evidence of higher expenses, a minimum of Rs.25,000/- shall be granted towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- only. In such circumstances, we are inclined to grant Rs.20,000/- more under that head. In the light of the said decision, the surviving spouse on the death of his or her spouse in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to get compensation of minimum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, we are inclined to grant Rs.85,000/- more under that head. Towards loss of love and affection, only an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted. In other words, it can be taken that respondents 2 to 5 are granted a total amount of Rs.15,000/-. We are of the view that they MACA No.1399/2008 8 ought to have been granted Rs.5,000/- each under that head. In that view of the matter, an amount of Rs.5,000/- more is granted towards loss of love and affection. In the light of the re-assessment made as above, the appellants are entitled to get a total additional compensation of Rs.3,34,000/-. It is awarded. The additional compensation will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. As per order dated 26.09.2016 in C.M.Appln.No.1383/2008, while condoning the delay, it was ordered that the appellant would not be entitled to get interest for a period of 214 days occurred in the matter of filing delay. In such circumstances, it is made clear that the appellants would not be entitled to get interest for the period of 214 days . The third respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. From the additional compensation granted as per this judgment, appellants 3 to 5 who are the siblings of the deceased shall be granted Rs.10,000/- each. The first appellant alone is entitled to get amount granted additionally towards loss of consortium viz., MACA No.1399/2008 9 Rs.85,000/- and interest thereon. The balance amount shall be apportioned between the first and second appellants in the ratio of 2:1. There will be no order as to costs. ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE** sv.