High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2015-03-30Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Thankamma and Others v. Sajeevkumar, Kesavadas and The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA 1950 of 2007)

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 1950 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T. R. Ramachandran Nair
P. V. Asha
Judgment Date: 2015-03-30
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the modified award is Rs. 8,72,274 with 9% interest, to be deposited within three months. The insurer is to deposit the modified amount after deducting any amounts already deposited. The enhanced compensation shall be shared equally by appellants 2 and 5, and the minor child’s share shall be kept in fixed deposit.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; detailed modified heads of damages; 9% interest; deposit within three months; minor child’s share secured in fixed deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thankamma
Rajany
Shaju
Rajan
Baburaj (minor, represented by mother Rajany)

Respondents

Sajeevkumar, S/o. Ramakrishnan, Plavinkoottathil House, Kuttoor
Kesavadas, S/o. Late Balakrishnan, Attoor House, Choolissery, Thrissur
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Shriram Site Office, 2-A, Prakasam Road, T. Nagar, Chennai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. SARAH SALVY

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from the award of Rs. 3,70,574 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in OPMV 363/2004 for a death occurring on 26-12-2003 due to a bus accident. The deceased, aged 24, was a railway construction worker and purportedly earned Rs. 3,500 per month. The Tribunal fixed income at Rs. 3,000 per month and, after a deduction for personal expenses, awarded Rs. 2,64,000 for dependency and Rs. 30,000 to the wife for loss of consortium, among other heads. The appellants challenge the quantum as inadequate, relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh and Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation to argue for higher sums. They contend the deceased’s income is reasonably Rs. 3,500 monthly, and the multiplier should be 18 (age-based Per Sarala Verma). They seek enhanced compensation including Rs. 1,00,000 for love and affection, Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 35,000 loss of estate, among others, plus higher hospitalization costs. The High Court accepts these propositions, recalculates: dependency Rs. 5,67,000; adds Rs. 35,000 for loss of estate; increases hospital costs to Rs. 14,800; awards Rs. 1,00,000 each for love and affection and for loss of consortium; Rs. 25,000 funeral; Rs. 14,800 by-stander expenses; Rs. 3,173 traveling; total Rs. 8,72,274 with 9% interest. The insurer is directed to deposit the modified amount within three months; minor’s share to be fixed in FD; appeal allowed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplier based on age of the deceased (Sarala Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation)
Deduction of personal expenses from dependency calculation (1/3 or 1/4 rule)
Love and affection, loss of consortium, and loss of estate recognized as heads of compensation (per Rajesh v Rajbir Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. They urged that the deceased’s income should be taken as Rs. 3,500 per month and that the proper multiplier, based on his age (24 years), is 18, following Sarala Verma. They sought enhanced sums under heads such as loss of dependency, love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and loss of estate, along with higher medical and hospitalization costs and appropriate interest; the total should reflect modern precedents (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh). They also pressed for distribution of the enhanced amount with the minor child’s share fixed in a bank FD.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed undue enhancement, arguing that the Tribunal’s award was just and that the evidence supported the assessed income and the dependency calculation. The insurer’s advocate emphasized liability and the need to preserve sufficient deposit, while urging that the Tribunal’s method should not be disturbed beyond reasonable limits. The respondents implicitly relied on the existing heads of damages and cautioned against overstatement of earnings and speculative multipliers; they urged maintaining a balanced distribution and compliance with statutory deposit timelines.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh	2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify awarding higher sums for love and affection and loss of consortium; supports the age-based multiplier argument and heads of compensation.
Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify adopting a multiplier based on the deceased’s age (18) rather than a lower figure.

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 Thankamma and Others v. Sajeevkumar, Kesavadas and The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA 1950 of 2007) 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937** ## **MACA.No. 1950 of 2007 ( )** **--------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 363/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM DATED 22-08-2006** ## **APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS::** **------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THANKAMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN, CHULLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRUNILAMKODE P.O MULLURKKARA (VIA), THRISSUR.** **2. RAJANY, AGED 19 YEARS, W/O. BABU P.R. (LATE), CHULLIVALAPPIL HOUSE IRUNILAMKODE P.O., MULLURKKARA (VIA), THRISSUR.** **3. SHAJU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, CHULLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRUNILAMKODE P.O. MULLURKKARA (VIA), THRISSUR.** **4. RAJAN, AGED 50 YEARS, CHULLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRUNILAMKODE P.O. MULLURKKARA (VIA), THRISSUR.** ## **SUPPL.** **5. BABURAJ, AGED 5 MONTHS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN, MOTHER 2ND PETITIONER, RAJANY.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. SAJEEVKUMAR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, PLAVINKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR.** **-2-** ## **MACA.No. 1950 of 2007 ( )** ## **--------------------------** **2. KESAVADAS, S/O. LATE BALAKRISHNAN, ATTOOR HOUSE, CHOOLISSERY, THRISSUR.** **3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHRIRAM SITE OFFICE, 2-A, PRAKASAM ROAD T. NAGAR, CHENNAI., P.NO.501602/31/03/5301066 VALID FROM 27-11-2003, TO 26-11-2004.** **R,R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V. ASHA, JJ.** ................................................. . ## **M.A.C.A. No. 1950 of 2007** .............................................. Dated this the 30[th] day of March, 2015. ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **P.V. Asha, J** The appellants are the parents, brother, wife and minor child of deceased Babu, who met with an accident on 26-12-2003. The accident occurred when the bus in which he was travelling, hit on a post. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to West Fort Hi-Tech Hospital, Thrissur. After 74 days of inpatient treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 29-3-2004. 2. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,574/- only. **M.A.C.A. No. 1950 of 2007** **2** 3. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides. 4. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. He was a member of the Railway Construction Labours Union and it was claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.3500/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed the income at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. After deducting 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- under the head of compensation towards loss of dependency. The wife was aged 19 years. She was awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. The award is challenged on inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded on various grounds. 5. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT 89(SC))** , the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and widow is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. As the deceased was engaged as a **M.A.C.A. No. 1950 of 2007 3** construction worker in the railway, we are of the view that the monthly income claimed as Rs.3,500/- is reasonable and hence we adopt the same to fix it as monthly income towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 11. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 (SC))** , the multiplier is to be adopted on the basis of the age of the deceased. As the deceased was 24 years old, the proper multiplier is 18. Therefore, reckoning the monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, adopting multiplier as 18 and after deducting ¼[th] towards personal expenses a sum of Rs. 5,67,000/- (3500x12x3/4x18) is admissible to the appellants towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. We award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of estate. It is seen that the deceased was under the in-patient treatment for a period of 74 days for which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,100/- only. We enhance the same to Rs.14,800/- at the rate of Rs.200/- per day. The **M.A.C.A. No. 1950 of 2007** **4** ## award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows. |**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount awarded by the_**<br>**_Tribunal_**|**_Amount modified._**| |---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|264000|567000| |Medical expenses|27301|27301| |Loss of consortium|30000|100000| |Loss of love and affection|30000|100000| |By-standers expenses|11100|14800| |Travellingexpenses.|3173|3173| |Funeral expenses|5000|25000| |Loss of estate||35000| |Total||8,72,274/-| (Rupees eight lakhs seventy two thousand two hundred and seventy four only) 6. Therefore, the total compensation will come to Rs. 8,72,274/-. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The insurance company will deposit the modified amount, less any amount already deposited before the Tribunal, within a period of three months. The compensation awarded shall be shared between appellants 2 and 5 equally. The share for the minor child shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till the child attains majority. **M.A.C.A. No. 1950 of 2007 5** The appeal is allowed as above. The parties shall bear respective costs in the appeal. ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE** **P.V. ASHA JUDGE** smm # **M.A.C.A. No. 1950 of 2007 6**