Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation and clari...

Sumayya Rahman and Mohammed Amanu Rahman (Minor) v. Thazhe Kiliyedath Rasheed, T.K.Mohammed Ashraf Partner (Calicut Cement Agencies), New India Assurance Co. Ltd., C.P. Sainaba, Rasheeda, MuFeeda (Appeal from MACA 1478/2009)

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Basant Balaji
Judgment Date
2022-10-26
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,86,300/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Tribunal’s other findings stand confirmed. If any amounts were already paid, they shall be set off. Bank details for NEFT/RTGS transfer to be provided within one month from receipt of certified copy; failure to furnish bank details within the specified time shall not attract interest on the enhanced amount beyond the period stipulated. The appeal was allowed despite a delay of 161 days; the court held that if the enhanced amount is ultimately awarded, interest shall not accrue for the period of delay.”,
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation and clarified transfer process; interest provisions adjusted; delay not resulting in entitlement to interest on enhanced amount for the period of delay.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sumayya Rahman
  • Mohammed Amanu Rahman (Minor) represented by mother guardian

Respondents

  • Thazhe Kiliyedath Rasheed S/o Hassan, Naduvan-noor, Karumbam Poyil P.O., Kozhikode District
  • T.K.Mohammed Ashraf, Partner, Calicut Cement Agencies, 3/555, Cherakkal Buildings, East Nadakkavu P.O., Kozhikode District
  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Kozhikode
  • C. P. Sainaba W/o A.P. Mohammedali Athimannil Poolatt House, Kidangazhi, Karuvambrum P.O., Manjeri
  • Rasheeda D/o A.P.Mohammedali Athimannil Poolatt House, Kidangazhi, Karuvambrum P.O., Manjeri
  • Mufeeda D/o A.P.Mohammedali Athimannil Poolatt House, Midangazhi, Karuvambrum P.O., Manjeri

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.)
  • • P. Venugopal

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Deepa George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, concerning the death of Mohammed Abdurahiman in a road collision on 05.11.2003. The appellants, Sumayya Rahman and Mohammed Amanu Rahman (minor), represented by their mother, challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 3,80,500 with 7% interest. The respondents included the lorry owner, insurer, and others. The appellants argued that the deceased, aged about 26, earned Rs. 4,500 per month as a sales representative and that the Tribunal erred in adopting a lower income (Rs. 2,500) for calculation. Invoking Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., they urged a monthly income of Rs. 4,000 with 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 17 (age 26–30), with a 1/4 deduction for personal living expenses, to compute loss of dependency at a higher figure (around Rs. 8.56 lakh). They also argued for higher awards under loss of consortium (based on Pranay Sethi), loss of estate, and funeral expenses. The respondents contended the accident resulted from the deceased’s own rash overtaking of a bus, with owner and insurer scarcely liable. The High Court allowed the appeal, altering the headwise components to total enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,86,300, with 7% interest, and directed transfer via NEFT/RTGS; it held a 161-day delay would deprive interest on the enhanced amount, and otherwise confirmed Tribunal findings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Future prospects for dependency calculations (Ramachandrappa doctrine)
  • Consortium entitlement for wife, children and parents with escalation (Pranay Sethi)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased’s income should be Rs. 4,000 per month with 40% future prospects, applying a multiplier of 17 for a 26-year-old (age group 26–30) and a 1/4 deduction for personal living expenses. Relying on Ramachandrappa, they argued that the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 2,500 monthly income was in error and that loss of dependency should be recalculated to a substantially higher figure (Rs. 8,56,800 in the appeal). They sought higher awards for loss of consortium (Rs. 1,76,000 to Rs. 1,76,000 for four claimants at Rs. 44,000 each, with escalation), loss of estate, and funeral expenses, following Pranay Sethi’s guidelines that a spouse, children, and parents are entitled to enhanced consortium compensation with escalation. They also urged that if any amount was already paid, it should be set off.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself (overtaking a bus), and therefore the owner and insurer should not be held liable beyond policy limits; the evidence supported that the deceased’s own negligence caused the collision. They argued for maintaining the Tribunal’s findings and questioned the extent of enhancements proposed by the appellants.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited[(2011) 13 SCC 236]PositiveThe judgment relied on Ramachandrappa to determine the appropriate monthly income and the application of future prospects for calculating dependency losses.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi[(2017) 16 SCC 680]PositiveThe judgment applied Pranay Sethi’s consortium guidelines and escalation provisions for awarding loss of consortium and related 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 Sumayya Rahman and Mohammed Amanu Rahman (Minor) v. Thazhe Kiliyedath Rasheed, T.K.Mohammed Ashraf Partner (Calicut Cement Agencies), New India Assurance Co. Ltd., C.P. Sainaba, Rasheeda, MuFeeda (Appeal from MACA 1478/2009) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-1-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIA, 1944** ## **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 372/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** ## **TRIBUNAL , MANJERI** ## **APPELLANTS:** - 1 SUMAYYA RAHMAN, W/O.MOHAMMED ABDURAHIMAN(LATE),, ATHIMANNIL POOLATT HOUSE, KIDANGAZHI,, KARUVAMBRUM-P.O., MANJERI,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. - 2 MOHAMMED AMANU RAHMAN (MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ABDURAHIMAN(LATE),, REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN-IST APPELLANT. BY ADVS. P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) P.VENUGOPAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THAZHE KILIYEDATH RASHEED S/O.HASSAN, NADUVANNOOR,, KARUMBAM POYIL-P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. - 2 T.K.MOHAMMED ASHRAF PARTNER, CALICUT CEMENT AGENCIES,, 3/555, CHERAKKAL BUILDINGS, EAST NADAKKAVU P.O.,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. - 3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. - 4 C.P.SAINABA W/O.A.P.MOHAMMEDALI ATHIMANNIL POOLATT HOUSE,, KIDANGAZHI, KARUVAMBRUM P.O.,, **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-2-** MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. - 5 RASHEEDA D/O.A.P.MOHAMMEDALI ATHIMANNIL POOLATT HOUSE,, KIDANGAZHI, KARUVAMBRUM-P.O.,, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. - 6 MUFEEDA D/O.A.P.MOHAMMEDALI ATHIMANNIL POOLATT HOUSE,, MIDANGAZHI, KARUVAMBRUM P.O., MANJERI,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV DEEPA GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are petitioners 1 and 2 in O.P (MV) No.372 of 2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Mohammed Abdurahiman who died in an accident on 05.11.2003. The case, in brief, is as follows: 2. On 05.11.2003 at about 10.30 am while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL 10/P 7475 from the Manjeri to Perinthalmanna and when the vehicle reached vayapparappadi, Manjeri a lorry bearing Reg. No.KL 11/R 5507 driven by the first respondent which came from the opposite side dashed against the motorcycle and thereby the deceased sustained serious head injuries. He was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Manjeri, and from there, to Medical College, Calicut. He died on the way to the Medical College Hospital. The **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-4-** accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The petitioner's claim was Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy but denied the liability. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself, who by overtaking a bus dashed against the lorry. Therefore, the owner and the insurer are the necessary parties in the petition. 4. The Tribunal relying on Exts.A1 to 3 awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,80,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, this appeal is filed. 5. According to the counsel for the appellants, the deceased was aged 26 years and was working as a sales representative earning an income of Rs.4500/-. Though Ext.A3 certificate was produced to show that he was earning Rs.4500/- it **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-5-** was not properly proved and hence the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.2,500/-. Relying on the judgment reported in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236],** the monthly salary to be taken for an accident that happened in the year 2003, is Rs.4000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 26 years, 40% have to be added towards future prospects. Hence, the monthly salary can be fixed as Rs.5600/-. The proper multiplier that could be adopted for the aged group between 26 to 30 is 17, but the Tribunal has taken it as 18. Since the deceased is survived by 4 persons, 1/4 has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence the compensation for the loss dependency can be calculated as 5600 x 12 x 17 x 3/4= Rs.8,56,800/-. For the head loss of consortium, The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- to the wife alone. In **National Insurance** **Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** case, the Apex Court held that the wife, children, and parents are entitled to the consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- plus 10% escalation **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-6-** each in every three years. Hence the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.44,000 x 4= Rs.1,76,000/-. Towards loss of estate as well as funeral expenses, the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000 plus 10% escalation each. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2500 and Rs.2000 respectively under the head of loss of estate and for funeral expenses. Hence, they are entitled to an amount of Rs.14,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.14,500/-. When loss of consortium is awarded, no amounts can be awarded under the head love and affection. So, the award of Rs.5,000/- by the Tribunal towards love and affection is set aside. Since the person met with an accident and died while on the way to the hospital, they are not entitled to any compensation for the head pain and suffering. So the award of Rs.5000/- by the Tribunal is also set aside. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award passed by the Tribunal: **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-7-** |Sl<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amt. awarded by<br>the Tribunal (Rs.)|Amt.<br>enhanced<br>in<br>appeal(Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|3,60,000/-|8,56,800| |2|Loss of consortium|5,000|1,76,000| |3|Loss of estate|2,500|16,500| |4|Funeral expenses|2,000|16,500| |5|Pain and suffering|5,000|-| |6|Love and affection|5,000|-| ||Total|3,79,500/-|10,65,800/-| ||Amount enhanced Rs. 10,65,800 - 3,79,500=**Rs.6,86,300/-**||| In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the appellants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,86,300/- (Rupees Six lakh eighty-six thousand three hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank **MACA NO. 1478 OF 2009** **-8-** account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. The appeal was filed with a delay of 161 days and this Court by allowing the delay petition, it is held that if ultimately, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation, they will be disentitled to the interest for the period of 161 days. Hence, the appellants will not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced compensation for a period of 161 days. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** JS