High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-06Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced t...

Sugunan K and Others v. Raveendran Nair and Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1912 OF 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2023-03-06
Court Decision / Holding: The MACA is allowed to the extent stated: notional income of the wife fixed at Rs.4,500 for 2004; contributory negligence not applicable to the wife; funeral expenses and loss of estate increased to Rs.15,000 each with 10% uplift; consortium for three claimants fixed at Rs.40,000 each with 10% uplift; loss of dependency enhanced to Rs.4,68,000; total enhanced compensation Rs.6,50,000. Insurance to pay the enhanced amount with interest from petition date at 7% for the enhanced portion, subject to adjustments for any prior payment; NEFT/RTGS transfer to claimants’ bank accounts within prescribed time; the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.6,50,000 with headwise adjustments; contributory negligence against the wife reversed; interest and NEFT/RTGS transfer ordered; 160 days delay for filing appeal impacts interest on enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sugunan K, S/o Kuttappan, Koprachira, Thalayazhom P.O., Thalayazhom Panchayat, Ward No.9, Vaikom, Kottayam
Vikas Babu S/o Sugunan
Wincy Mol S/o Sugunan

Respondents

Raveendran Nair, S/o Narayanan Nair, Edapparayil, Karikku P.O., Peruva, Kottayam
Transport Officer, Hindusthan News Print, News Print Nagar P.O., Vettoor, Kottayam
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vettukattil Buildings, M.G. Road, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.M. Firoz

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri V.Krishna Menon
• Sri E.K. Madhavan
• Sri U.K. Ramakrishnan
• Smt.P.K.Santhamma
• Smt.Uma Gopinath
• Smt.P.Vijaya Amma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from O.P(M.V).No.198 of 2005 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, after a 2004 motor-cycle accident in which the husband and wife were injured and the wife died. The Tribunal awarded compensation on heads including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection, and consortium, while deducting 25% for contributory negligence attributed to the husband’s act of overtaking a bus; the wife, a pillion rider, could not be held contributorily negligent. The appellants argued that the wife’s notional income for 2004 should be Rs.4,500 per year instead of Rs.2,000, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.; that the 25% deduction should not apply to the death claim; and that funeral expenses and loss of estate, as well as consortium, should be enhanced with a 10% uplift per Pranay Sethi. They also sought enhanced loss of dependency (from Rs.2,08,000 to Rs.4,68,000) and a higher consortium amount (Rs.40,000 per claimant with 10% uplift). The High Court partly allowed the appeal, applying Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi guidelines, holding that contributory negligence cannot be imputed to the wife, and reworking the compensation to Rs.6,50,000 in total, with a headwise tabulation, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount and to transfer funds by NEFT/RTGS after necessary bank details are provided.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the wife’s notional income in 2004 should be Rs.4,500 per year in line with Ramachandrappa; the 25% contributory negligence deduction on the husband cannot be extended to the wife (a pillion rider). Funeral expenses and loss of estate should be Rs.15,000 each with a 10% uplift under Pranay Sethi; love and affection should be replaced by consortium at Rs.40,000 per claimant with 10% uplift; loss of dependency should be enhanced significantly (to Rs.4,68,000 from Rs.2,08,000); total compensation should be just and reasonable beyond pleadings. The appellants urge that the award reflect just compensation under MACT jurisprudence, applying Pranay Sethi and Ramachandrappa principles to quantum.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that enhanced compensation would exceed the amount claimed in pleadings and should accord with the petitioned relief; at most, the award should stay within the pleadings; the Tribunal’s deduction for contributory negligence, though arguable, should be limited and not applied to the death claim.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify increasing the notional income of the deceased’s spouse (from Rs.2,000 to Rs.4,500) per year in line with Ramachandrappa.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	[2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]	Positive	Applied for heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium and for a 10% uplift; also informs the overall framework for just and reasonable compensation per Pranay Sethi.

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 Sugunan K and Others v. Raveendran Nair 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. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944** ## **MACA NO. 1912 OF 2007** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 198/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** ## **TRIBUNAL, PALA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 SUGUNAN K, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KOPRACHIRA, THALAYAZHOM P.O., THALAYAZHOM PANCHAYAT, WARD NO.9, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2 VIKAS BABU SO. SUGUNAN -DO- -DO3 WINCYMOL DO. SUGUNAN -DO- -DOBY ADV SRI.K.M.FIROZ ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.NARYANAN NAIR, EDAPPARAYIL, KARIKKODU P.O., PERUVA, KOTTAYAM. 2 TRANSPORT OFFICER, M/S. HINDUSTHAN NEWS PRINT, NEWS PRINT NAGAR PO.,, VETTOOR, KOTTAYAM. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM., (POLICY NO.100100/31/04/000 34). BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SR. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.1912/2007 2 **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J -------------------M.A.C.A.No.1912 of 2007 ----------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P(M.V).No.198 of 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala. In an accident which occurred in the year 2004, the husband and the wife, who were traveling in a motor cycle, sustained injuries, of which, the wife succumbed. O.P(M.V).No.198 of 2005 is the claim on account of the death of wife, preferred by the husband and two children. The appeal is essentially focused on enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, as also, challenging the contributory negligence reckoned by the Tribunal, which resulted in the compensation being reduced by 25%. M.A.C.A.1912/2007 3 **2.** Heard Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. P.K.Santhamma, learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records. **3.** The first point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to the notional income of the wife. The Tribunal reckoned only Rs.2,000/-, whereas, the deceased is entitled to have her notional income reckoned at the rate of Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004, going by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v.** **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company** **Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** . The contention is well founded and the same is accepted. **4** . As regards contributory negligence also, this Court finds that the course adopted by the Tribunal is not proper. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of the husband, since the accident occurred in an attempt to overtake a bus. M.A.C.A.1912/2007 4 Even assuming that contributory negligence can be reckoned, the same has to be confined to the claim of the husband and the same cannot be extended automatically to the claim based on the death of the wife. There cannot be any contributory negligence mulcted on the wife, who was only a pillion in the motor cycle. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that, 25% deduction alleging contributory negligence cannot be sustained. **5.** Under the head 'funeral expenses', a sum of Rs.3,000/- alone is granted by the Tribunal, as against the entitlement of the claimants to receive Rs.15,000/-, going by the decision in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662** **(SC)].** The same is the situation with respect to 'loss of estate', under which head, no amount is seen granted. Here again, the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/-. Under both the heads, the claimants are entitled to 10% increase as M.A.C.A.1912/2007 5 contemplated in **Pranay Sethi** supra. **6** . A sum of Rs.15,000/- is seen granted under the head 'love and affection'. The same is liable to be obliterated; instead, the appellants are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each to the three claimants, who are the husband and two children, along with an increase of 10% in terms of **Pranay Sethi** supra. **7.** The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the third respondent is that the grant of compensation in the lines indicated above will exceed the total amount claimed by the applicants, i.e, Rs.8,00,000/-. This Court is of the opinion that, being a Court which deals with compensation arising from motor accidents, what has to be looked into is grant of just and reasonable compensation and the same need not be pinned down to the niceties of the pleadings, that is to say, the amount claimed in the claim petition. M.A.C.A.1912/2007 6 **8.** In the result, this M.A.C.A. is allowed and the compensation amount payable to the claimants/appellants is reworked and indicated in the tabular statement here below. |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the Tribunal**|**Total amount after** **enhancement in appeal**| |---|---|---|---| |**1**|Transport to Hospital|2,000|**2,000**| |**2**|Funeral Expenses|3,000|**16,500** **[15000+(15000x10/100)]**| |**3**|Loss of estate|Nil|**16,500** **[15000+(15000x10/100)]**| |**4**|Pain and Suffering|15,000|**15,000**| |**5**|Love and Affection|15,000|**Nil**| |**6**|Consortium|15,000|**1,32,000** **[40,000x3x110/100]**| |**7**|Loss of dependency|2,08,000|**4,68,000 ***| ||Total|2,58,000|**6,50,000**| |Amount enhanced = Rs.**6,50,000**– Rs.**2,58,000**=**Rs.3,92,000/-**|||| **[* 4,500 x 12 x 13 x 2/3]** **9.** The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 7% from the date of petition. If any M.A.C.A.1912/2007 7 amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 160 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period, as directed in order dated 30.11.2022 in C.M.A.No.1980/2007 in M.A.C.A.1912/2007. **10.** The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the M.A.C.A.1912/2007 8 date of petition. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. **Sd/-** **C.JAYACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** Sbna/