Sudha v. Shive Shakti Earth Movers & Anr

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
A. V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date: 2012-06-28
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above (enhanced compensation across heads and recalculated dependency using the Sarla Verma framework).
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; impugned award modified to increase compensation and adjust various heads of damages as detailed in the judgment. There is no further direction beyond confirming the modified award with interest at the rate mentioned in the award.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sudha
Seethal.C.R
Sreejith.C.R (minor) represented by mother Sudha

Respondents

Shive Shakti Earth Movers
N.V. Abhilash
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.P.V.Baby
• Sri.A.N.Santhosh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from MACA No.375 of 2009 (A) concerning the death of Ramadevan, a 43-year-old toddy tapper, who died in a motor accident on 16 March 2004 when a jeep struck him while he was pillion riding a motorcycle. His widow Sudha and his two minor children, represented by Sudha, challenged an MACT award directing Shive Shakti Earth Movers’ driver and the insurer to pay 3,98,000 together with interest. The appellants argued that the tribunal wrongly fixed the deceased’s monthly income at 3,000 despite Ext. A7 showing 6,000 and failed to apply the correct multiplier, given his age and the 2004 context. They asserted the deceased would have earned about 4,000 per month and that the Supreme Court’s multiplier framework, as in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, should apply (multiplier 14 for age group). After deducting one-third for personal expenses, dependency losses should be higher, and compensation under heads such as pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses, transportation, loss of consortium, and love/affection for the minor children warranted enhancement. The High Court recalculated, increasing the dependency loss to 4,48,000 and awarding additional sums: 5,000 for pain and suffering, 5,000 for loss of estate, 2,000 for transportation, 10,000 for loss of consortium, and 25,000 for each child’s love and affection, totaling an added 1,37,000 over the tribunal award. The appeal is allowed and the award modified accordingly, with accrued interest retained at the same rate.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation - multiplier method for calculating compensation in death cases (2010 (2) KLT 802 SC)
Deduction of one-third of income for personal expenses in calculating dependency

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contended that the tribunal erred in computing income and applying multiplier; Ext.A7 showed a monthly salary of 6,000, which was not properly proved, and the deceased’s earnings were around 4,000 per month. They urged application of the Sarla Verma multiplier (14) and deduction of one-third for personal expenses, to ↑heighten dependency compensation. They also sought enhanced awards for pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses, transportation, loss of consortium, and love/affection for the minors.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in the judgment; no separate respondent-argument section is reproduced in the provided text.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 SC	Positive	Court applied the Supreme Court multiplier framework from Sarla Verma to determine the appropriate age-based multiplier and dependency calculation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/7TH ASHADHA 1934 MACA.No. 375 of 2009 (A) ------------------------------OPMV.588/2004 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA ---------- APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 IN OPMV: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHA, W/O. LATE RAMADEVAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N. PURAM DESOM CHENGALOOR VILLAGE AND P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SEETHAL.C.R, D/O. LATE RAMADEVAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N. PURAM DESOM CHENGALOOR VILLAGE AND P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SREEJITH.C.R (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMADEVAN, REP. BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER IST APPELLANT SUDHA CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N. PURAM DESOM CHENGALOOR VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OPMV: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHIVE SHAKTI EARTH MOVERS, - 17/5, MATHURA ROAD, OPP. MAGPIC RESTAURANT FARIDABAD - 121 002. 2. N.V. ABHILASH, S/O. NJATTUVETTIL VELAYUDHAN, NOOLUVALLY CHEMBOOCHIRA, THRISSUR. MACA.No. 375 of 2009 (A) -2- ## 3. THE NATIONAL INSURNCE CO. LTD., SECTOR 16, FARIDABAD (BR. CODE 361102) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. -----------------------------------------------M. A. C. A No.375 of 2009 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Ramakrishna Pillai, J_ The appellants are the unfortunate widow and minor children of a 43 year old toddy tapper by name Ramadevan who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor occurrence on 16/03/04. Allegedly while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle, he was hit down by a jeep which was coming from the opposite direction. The second respondent was the driver of the jeep and it was insured with the third respondent Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal which tried the claim petition found that the second respondent was negligent and the third respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of ` 3,98,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum against the claim of ` 10 lakhs. In this M. A. C. A No.375 of 2009 -2- appeal, the appellants are challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We have perused the impugned award also. 3. The main grievance voiced against the award is that the learned Tribunal has adopted a lower multiplicand for arriving at the compensation for loss of dependency. Though the appellants have produced Ext.A7 certificate from the Toddy Tapper's Welfare Union which states that he was earning a monthly salary of ` 6,000/-, it is seen from the award that the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at ` 3,000/-. Probably this may be because of the reason that Ext.A7 certificate was not proved through the person who had issued the same. We notice that the accident was in the year 2004 and the deceased was aged 43 years. The fact that the deceased was a toddy tapper by profession is not in dispute. Presumably the deceased might have been earning at the rate of ` 4,000/- per month as a toddy tapper. The correct multiplier applicable to the M. A. C. A No.375 of 2009 -3- age group of the deceased as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 SC) is 14. As there are only three claimants one third of the amount has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive. When the dependency compensation is recalculated as above it will stand enhanced to ` 4,48,000/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ` 3,60,000/-, we are awarding an additional sum of ` 88,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the death of the deceased was not instantaneous and he breathed his last while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of ` 5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering which, we feel, is on the lower side. Thus we award an additional sum of ` 5,000/- under that head. 5. We notice that no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of estate. We award a sum of M. A. C. A No.375 of 2009 -4- ` 5,000/- under that head. 6. The learned Tribunal was miserly in awarding compensation for funeral expenses also. Only a sum of ` 3,000/- is seen awarded under that head. We award an additional sum of ` 2,000/- on that count. 7. The deceased was taken from the accident spot to the hospital and his dead body was taken from hospital to his home. No amount was awarded towards transportation expenses. Thus we award a sum of ` 2,000/- under that head. 8. The first appellant widow of the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of consortium is only ` 15,000/-. We are of the view that the said amount is on the lower side and thus we award an additional sum of ` 10,000/- on that count. 9. The appellants 2 and 3 who were minors at the time of the accident were aged 14 years and 11 years respectively. As the appellants 2 and 3 lost their father at M. A. C. A No.375 of 2009 -5- their tender age, certainly they are entitled to get a reasonable amount as compensation towards loss of love and affection. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ` 15,000/- under that head, we award an additional sum of ` 25,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection. 10. Thus in total, the appellants become entitled to get an additional sum of ` 1,37,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the same rate made mention of in the award. 11. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above. Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M. A. C. A No.375 of 2009 -6-