High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-09-16Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation an...

Sumathy v. TO GEORGE and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., MACA No. 737 of 2013

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.737 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
K. P. Jyothindr(an)ath
Judgment Date: 2017-09-16
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the compensation. Juggling the evidence and precedents (notably Ramachandrappa for income and Rajesh for consortium), the court fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 4,500 and recalculated awards across heads, granting an additional Rs. 4,36,000 overall. The enhanced amount, with 8% interest from the petition date, will be distributed in the same ratio as the Tribunal’s order; the third respondent-insurer is to deposit the enhanced sum within two months. There is no order as to costs. The Tribunal may realize any additional court fee from the deposited amount.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation and interest; no costs; enhanced amount to be deposited within two months; tribunal to realize additional court fee from the deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUMATHY
ASWATHI
ABHILASH
JANAKI
APPUKUTTAN

Respondents

TO GEORGE
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. BABY MATHEW

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. R. AJITH KUMAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.790/2008 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, assessing compensation for Sivadas’s death in a February 11, 2008 accident involving lorry KL-1/8191. The tribunal awarded Rs. 4,59,000 and the appellants—Sumathy (guardian mother of minor claimants), Aswathi, Abhilash, Janaki, and Appukutttan—seek higher compensation, arguing the deceased, a cook, earned Rs. 4,500 per month by supplying cooked food at a toddy shop, and that the tribunal wrongly applied Rs. 3,000 as monthly income due to lack of reliable evidence. They contend under-compensation across heads including loss of dependency, pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236, they urge a higher monthly income and, relying on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (SC) 2013 (3) KLT 89, seek appropriate enhancement for loss of consortium and love/affection. The respondents’ counsel appeared at hearing with the insurer’s representative. The High Court, while noting the accident date and the evidence, reassesses income at Rs. 4,500 and grants substantial augmentations across several heads, directing an enhanced compensation and interest, with distribution per the tribunal’s ratio, no costs, and deposit within two months.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend Sivadas, aged 31 at the time of the accident, was a cook who earned about Rs. 4,500 per month by selling prepared food at Pudussery toddy shop. They argue the MACT’s assessment of Rs. 3,000 monthly income was without reliable evidence and should be set aside in light of Ramachandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236, which supports considering actual earning potential for dependency calculations. They assert enhanced compensation is warranted for loss of dependency, pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses, and especially for loss of consortium, citing Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (SC) 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC) to justify a minimum Rs. 1 lakh for consortium. They also emphasize the minor claimants’ ages (3 and 1) and seek appropriate allocation of enhanced sums to consolation heads and guardianship measures.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ stance relies on upholding the Tribunal’s assessment as sound and supported by the evidence. They contest higher monthly income, arguing the evidence does not establish a reliable figure beyond what the tribunal found, and caution against speculative inflation of damages. They maintain that the award already covers relevant heads with due consideration to age, inflation, and standard of living, and that any increase must be grounded in substantial evidence and legal principles.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix the monthly income (Rs. 4,500) for dependency calculation and compensation assessment.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	[2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)]	Positive	Court cites Rajesh to justify a minimum Rs. 1 lakh for loss of consortium and adjusts accordingly in the award.

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 Sumathy v. TO GEORGE and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., MACA No. 737 of 2013 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** **SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/25TH BHADRA, 1939** ## **MACA.No. 737 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 790/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 31-03-2012** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:** **------------** **1. SUMATHY, W/O. SIVADAS, AGED 25 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **2. ASWATHI D/O. SIVADAS, AGED 3 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **3. ABHILASH, S/O. SIVADAS, AGED 1 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **4. JANAKI, W/O. APPUKUTTAN, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **5. APPUKUTTAN, S/O. ARU, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTTIAPALLAM HOUSE THENARI P.O., ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** - **APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT, MRS SUMATHY** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** - **--------------** **1. T O GEORGE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN THULAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADY P.O. KODALY, TRISSUR DISTRICT 680 699 (R.C. OWNER OF LORRY NO.KL-1/8191)** ## **MACA.No. 737 of 2013 ()** ## ***2. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 24 YEARS KULATHINGAL HOUSE, ALAYAR, VANDITHAVALAM, CHITTUR PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 101 (DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KL-1/8191) [DELETED]** **3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CITY HIEGHTS BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH JUNCTION CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. 680 307 (INSURER OF LORRY NO.KL-1/8191)** ***[THE NAME OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF APPELLANT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 17.1.17 IN IA 140/17 IN MACA 737/13]** ## **R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SHG/** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16[th] day of September, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Jyothindranath, J.** The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.(M.V.) No.790/2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. 2. The case necessary for disposal of this appeal is as follows: One Sivadas met with a motor vehicle accident on 11.2.2008. He was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-9T/4482. A lorry came from the opposite side and knocked him down. He sustained very severe injuries in that accident and he was taken to Government Hospital, Palakkad, but succumbed to the injuries. He left behind two minor children, parents and wife. They moved a claim petition before the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. Tribunal awarded Rs.4,59,000/-. The challenge is against the said award. M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013 2 3. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was a cook and was supplying cooked food in the toddy shop at Pudussery and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The tribunal considered only Rs.3,000/- as his monthly income for assessment of dependency. The case of the appellants is that the compensation awarded on other heads are also on a lower side. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing, there was no representation. As there is a duty on this court to assess just compensation, we consider the matter on merit. The learned counsel for the insurance company is present. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the insurance company, we perused the award. It can be seen that the accident occurred on 11.02.2008. It can be further seen that the deceased Sivadas was taken to hospital and thereon he died. It can be further seen that the tribunal while considering his monthly income highlighted the fact that as per the petition, the deceased was a cook and was selling food in toddy shop at Pudussery. But surely the M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013 3 Tribunal found that there was no reliable evidence. Taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2008 and that the deceased was then aged 31 years and also taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , we feel that it will be only proper to fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.4,500/-. Thus, his income is considered as Rs.4,500/-. It can be seen that on other heads also the compensation assessed by the tribunal is on a lower side. 6. Towards pain and suffering no amount is seen awarded. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted on that head. Towards dependency, reassessing the compensation, the appellants will be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- [4500 x 12x16x3/4 – 432000]. The said amount awarded. Though in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh** [ **2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)]** the first appellant is entitled to get a minimum of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium, the M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013 4 Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, an additional sum of Rs.90,000/- is awarded on that head. Similarly, towards funeral expenses also only a sum of Rs.2,000/- is seen awarded. An additional amount of Rs.23,000/- is also awarded on this head, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Rajesh** 's case (supra). Towards compensation for love and affection, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- is seen awarded. It is also on a lower side. It can be seen that at the time of accident, the second petitioner was only aged 3 years whereas the third petitioner was aged only one year. Under such circumstances, a total sum of Rs.1 lakh is awarded towards loss of love and affection (Rs.40,000/- each to claimants 2 & 3 and Rs.10,000/- each to claimants 4 & 5). Thus, on this head, the appellants will be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.90,000/-. 7. Towards loss of estate, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- is seen awarded. It is also enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and on this head the appellants will be entitled for an additional 5 M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013 compensation of Rs.5,000/-. It can be seen that the deceased was taken to hospital and from therein he died. Thus, considering the fact that no amount is seen awarded towards transportation expenses, a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded on this head. Towards damage to clothing also, no amount is seen awarded. It is a case of pecuniary loss. As such, a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded on this head. 8. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total additional compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty six thousand only). Excluding the additional compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, the balance amount shall be shared in the same ratio as ordered by the tribunal. The enhanced amount awarded towards loss of consortium will be given to the first appellant, who is the wife of the deceased. The compensation enhanced towards loss of love and affection shall be shared between petitioners 2 to 5, as shown above. The enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate of M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2013 6 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The third respondent shall deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. The release of the amount can be considered by the tribunal on an application. The tribunal shall realise the additional court fee due, if any, on the enhanced compensation from the deposited amount. Sd/- **JUDGE** Sd/- **JUDGE** //True copy// **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH** P.A. TO JUDGE shg/