High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-10Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Sunitha M.R. and Others v. Abdul Jaleel M.K. and Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.770 of 2012

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-08-10
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,31,870 is awarded at 8% interest from the date of petition until deposit or realization. The third respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the appellants’ names in the proportions 45:20:20:15 within two months from the date of judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; liability on insurers clarified; deposit directions issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunitha M.R.
Unnimaya M.G.
Vishnumaya M.G.
Radha.E.

Respondents

Abdul Jaleel M.K.
Rijjas N.B.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Kishor B.
• Sri. Ajay Johns
• Sri. K.P. Abdul Gafoor

Counsels for Respondents

• S.K. Ajay Kumar
• Sri. George Cherian Thiruvalla
• Sri. P.V. Jyothi Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 770 of 2012) arises from a claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act on the death of Girish in a road accident attributed to a private bus driver. The Kerala High Court, presided over by a single judge, re-examines the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, which had awarded Rs. 16,17,970 with 8% interest. The appellants—Sunitha M.R. and three minor children represented by Sunitha as guardian, and Radha E.—challenge the adequacy of compensation, the income assessment, and the computation heads. The respondents (insurers and the bus owner) contested liability and quantum. The Tribunal was silent on several disputes; the High Court first clarifies income and future prospects, endorsing the 50% enhancement for future prospects per Pranay Sethi and correcting the multiplier to 16 (age group 31–35) while applying a 1/4 deduction for four dependants. It also approves adjustments to funeral, loss of consortium, and loss of estate in light of Pranay Sethi, while striking down heads of pain and suffering and love and affection as impermissible per a later Supreme Court decision. The result is an enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,31,870, to be deposited by the insurers in specified proportions within two months, with liability on the third respondent. The appeal is allowed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi principle (50% addition for future prospects)
Principle that loss heads must align with Supreme Court guidance (Satinder Kaur) and entire structure of compensation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal under-assessed the decedent’s income (Rs. 10,502), failed to apply future prospects (50% enhancement) and used an incorrect multiplier (17 instead of 16). They urged a higher loss of dependency calculation and asked for the 40,000 loss of consortium to be treated appropriately under Pranay Sethi. They contended that the head for pain and suffering and for love and affection, as awarded by the Tribunal (5,000 and 40,000), is impermissible after Satinder Kaur, and should be reduced.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended liability and liability-related quantum issues should be adjudicated with caution, and disputed the higher compensation figures. They implicitly supported the Tribunal’s reasoning on the core heads but resisted excessive enhancement, arguing the insurer’s liability and the appropriateness of certain deductions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.	2017 (16) SCC 650	Positive	Court applies the Pranay Sethi ratio to grant 50% future prospects and selects the appropriate multiplier (16 for age 31-35) in computing loss of dependency.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur	AIR 2020 SC 3076	Positive	Court relies on Satinder Kaur to hold certain heads (pain and suffering; love and affection) impermissible, and accordingly reduces those amounts in line with the decision.

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 Sunitha M.R. and Others v. Abdul Jaleel M.K. 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 A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944 MACA NO. 770 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.12.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.1448/2009 OF** **MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :** |**1**|**SUNITHA M.R.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**W/O.GIRISH, KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**MUPPATHADAM.P.O.,**| ||**NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE,**| ||**KODUNGALLOOR.**| |**2**|**UNNIMAYA.M.G.,**| ||**AGED 9 YEARS**| ||**D/O.GIRISH, MINOR,**| ||**(D.O.B-18.4.2000),**| ||**RESIDING AT KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**MUPPATHADAM.P.O.,**| ||**NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE,**| ||**KODUNGALLOOR.**| ||**REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL**| ||**GUARDIAN SUNITHA.M.R.**| |**3**|**VISHNUMAYA.M.G.**| ||**AGED 6 YEARS**| ||**D/O.GIRISH, MINOR,**| ||**(D.O.B-5.3.2003),**| ||**RESIDING AT KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**MUPPATHADAM.P.O.,**| ||**NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE,**| ||**KODUNGALLOOR.**| ||**REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL**| ||**GUARDIAN SUNITHA.M.R.**| |**4**|**RADHA.E.,**| ||**AGED 55 YEARS**| ||**M/O.GIRISH, KOCHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**MUPPATHADAM.P.O.,**| ||**NEAR MUHUKAD TEMPLE,**| MACA No.770 of 2012 ..2.. ## **KODUNGALLOOR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KISHOR B. SRI.AJAY JOHNS SRI.K.P.ABDUL GAFOOR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** - **1 ABDUL JALEEL M.K., MULAKKAMPILLY HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR.P.O., KOCHI-34.** - **2 RIJAS.N.B. S/O.BASHEER, NAIMANAPARAMPIL, VETTAKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY, NORTH.P.O., KOCH-24.** - **3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. D.O. JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA.P.O.** - **4 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.228, KOCHI-2.** **BY ADVS.** - **S.K.AJAY KUMAR SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR** **ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.770 of 2012 ..3.. ## **MACA No.770 of 2012** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is at the instance of the petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.1448 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance companies, viz., third and fourth respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The allegation of the appellant is that on 27.05.2009 at about 7.30 p.m., one Girish died in consequence of a road accident occurred on 25.7.2009 at MACA No.770 of 2012 ..4.. about 7.30 p.m., while he was riding his motorcycle, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the second respondent, who had driven a private bus bearing Registration No.KL-7 BF-7737 at the time of accident, when the same hit down the motorcycle where, the above said Girish was travelling. 4. R1 and R2 were set ex parte by the Tribunal. 5. R3 filed written statement admitting the policy to the bus, but denied the liability. Quantum of compensation also was disputed. R4 also filed written statement admitting policy to the motorcycle ridden by Girish, while disputing the liability and quantum of compensation. 6. The Tribunal, after adjudicating the claim based on Exts.A1 to A12, granted Rs.16,17,970/- along MACA No.770 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** with 8% interest per annum payable by the third respondent, in a case where, no evidence let in by the respondents. 7. While canvassing increase on the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.9,990/- in the case of the deceased, who was employed as a Peon in Naval Base and he was earning a total salary of Rs.10,502/-, as could be gathered from Ext.A11 certificate issued by the employer. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Rs.10,502/- along with 50% addition is liable to be considered. 8. The Tribunal reduced Rs.230/(Rs.210+Rs.20/-) out of Rs.10,502/- on the finding that the same are meant for expenses in connection with the MACA No.770 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** employment and therefore, the same could not be counted for calculating loss of disability income. The said finding is correct and the same does not require any interference. However, the appellants are entitled to get 50% addition to the monthly income towards future prospectus, following the ratio in [2017 16 SCC 650], **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,** since the deceased herein was aged 33 years at the time of accident (below 40 years) having permanent job on the date of accident. The proper multiplier is '16' (age group between 31 to 35), though the Tribunal wrongly applied '17' as the multiplier. 1/4[th] is the deduction, since the claimants are four in numbers. Therefore, the loss of dependency income is as under; 9,990+50%=14,985/- 14,985x12x16x3/4=21,57,840/- MACA No.770 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Out of which, Rs.15,28,470/- was granted by the Tribunal. 21,57,840-15,28,470= **Rs.6,29,370/-** more is granted under the head loss of dependency income. 9. The Tribunal granted Rs.7,500/- alone under the head funeral expenses. Therefore, **Rs.7,500/-** more is granted under the said head following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case(supra). The Tribunal granted Rs.35,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. In this case, the appellants together are entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- as loss of consortium at rate of Rs.40,000/- following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case(supra). Out of which, Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal is reduced, treating the same was one granted under the head 'loss of consortium'. The balance amount to the tune of Rs. **1,25,000/-** (Rs.1,60,000-35,000) is MACA No.770 of 2012 ..8.. granted under the head loss of consortium. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to get **Rs.15,000/-** towards loss of estate also. 10. It is noticed that the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. The same are impermissible in view of the decision in [AIR 2020 SC 3076], **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur.** Therefore, Rs.45,000/(5,000+40,000) stands reduced. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of **Rs.7,31,870/-** (Rupees Seven lakh Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the MACA No.770 of 2012 ..9.. Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The insurance company is liable to pay the same. The insurance company, the third respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the name of the appellants in the proportion 45:20:20:15 within two months from today and on deposit, the appellants are entitled to get the same. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj