High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-08-18Partly allowed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Gopinathan Nair and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 784 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-08-18
Court Decision / Holding: In the result: This appeal is partly allowed; the impugned award is upheld in all other respects. The appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs 7,39,500/-, i.e., Rs 7,57,428 minus Rs 17,928, as the revised compensation payable to the claimants. The order for interest and costs remains as directed by the Tribunal, except as modified here.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

C. GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, V.G.BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28.
L. VIJAYAMMA, W/O.C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, V.G. BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA(VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28.
BINDHU.V.G., W/O. C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, V.G.BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA(VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
• SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
• SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
• SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
• SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
• SRI.DEEPU S.NAIR
• SRI.A.SIRAJ

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 784 of 2011) arising from an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum (O.P.M.V. No. 1199/2004). The claimants, being the deceased’s parents and unmarried sister, sought compensation for the death of a 26-year-old bachelor who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road accident on 23 April 2004. The Tribunal awarded a total of Rs. 7,57,428, with interest at 7.5% p.a. and costs, distributed across heads such as transportation, obsequies, clothing, pain and suffering, loss of dependency, love and affection, and mental agony. The insurer appealed, challenging two key aspects: (i) the use of a multiplier of 18 for loss of dependency, and (ii) the deduction of only 1/3 of the earnings for personal expenses. The claimants argued that the Tribunal did not adequately reflect the deceased’s youthful prospects and potential future earnings, supported by P.W.1 and Ext. A14 regarding his employment as a skilled troupe member. The Kerala High Court, citing Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, held that the multiplier should be based on the elder dependent for loss of dependency and that personal expenses should be treated as 50% for a bachelor. The court also considered the deceased’s future prospects and uplift in earnings in reassessing quantum. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation payable is reduced to Rs. 7,39,500, with the remainder of the award upheld.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 – multiplier principle and deduction for personal expenses; consideration of future prospects in earnings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The National Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 18 for loss of dependency and in deducting only one-third of the deceased’s earnings as personal expenses. It submits that Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 requires a correct application of the multiplier based on the elder dependent and an appropriate deduction for personal expenditures, while also recognizing the potential for future earnings improvements given the deceased’s youth and prospects. The insurer argues the evidence on income from the deceased’s stint as a skilled troupe member should have been given proper credence, potentially increasing the multiplicand and overall compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimants argue that the Tribunal did not sufficiently account for the deceased’s youthful age and future earning potential. They rely on evidence (P.W.1 and Ext. A14) showing the deceased’s employment as a skilled troupe member and argue that future prospects should be reflected in the quantum, contrary to a rigid application of the multiplier based solely on age. They contend that the Tribunal’s method of calculating loss of dependency underestimates the claimants’ legitimate entitlements and seek a higher award consistent with the deceased’s earnings history and likely future growth.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. DTC	(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121	Positive	The court explicitly relies on the Sarla Verma principle to apply the multiplier based on the elder dependent and to adjust personal expense deductions in loss of dependency calculations.

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 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Gopinathan 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 R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 784 of 2011() ---------------------OPMV.1199/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. C. GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, V.G.BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. 2. L. VIJAYAMMA,W/O.C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, V.G. BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA(VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. 3. BINDHU.V.G., W/O. C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, V.G.BHAVAN, KUTTIYANI, PANTHALAKKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA(VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.DEEPU S.NAIR FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.A.SIRAJ FOR R1 TO R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: # **R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.** **------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of August, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Basant,J.** The insurance company is the appellant. The parents and the unmarried sister of the deceased, a young man aged 26 years, are the claimants. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of their son/brother who succumbed to the injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 23/4/2004. The deceased was a bachelor. He had suffered multiple injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on the date of the accident itself. His father, the 1[st] claimant, was aged 60 years; his mother, the 2[nd] claimant, was aged 49 years and his sister, the 3[rd] claimant, was aged 28 years. The Tribunal against a total claim of `15,00,000/- (limited to), awarded a total amount of `7,57,428/- as per the details given in paragraph-23 of the impugned award which we extract below: **M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011** -: 2 :- |**Sl.No.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount** **awarded Rs.**|**Basis - vital details in a nut shell**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transportation to the expenses|2000|Reasonable estimate made| |2|Expenses for obsequies|5000|Reasonable estimate made| |3|Damages to clothing|500|Reasonable estimate made| |4|Compensation for pain and suffering|10000|15 anti-mortem injuries| |5|Compensation for loss of earning power and dependency benefit|719928|Rs.5000 x 2/3 x 12 x 18| |6|Compensation for loss of love and affection|10000|| |7|Compensation for loss of estate|10000|| |8|Compensation for mental agony|...|| ||Total|**757428**|With interest at 7.5% from 28/6/04 till realisation with costs Rs.2000/-| ||Limited to**Rs.15,00,000/-**||| The compensation was directed to be paid along with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the parents/claimants alone. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as also the learned counsel for the claimants. The learned counsel for the insurance company assails the impugned award on the following grounds: **M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011** -: 3 :- (i) The Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning 18 as the multiplier to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for loss of dependency. (ii) The Tribunal erred in reckoning only 1/3[rd] of the earnings of the deceased as necessary for his personal expenses. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand contends that the impugned award does not, at any rate, warrant interference inasmuch as the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating compensation for loss of dependency does not realistically take into account the future prospects in employment of the deceased, a young man aged about 26 years. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal was grossly in error in not accepting the oral evidence of P.W.1 supported by Ext.A14 certificate to prove the employment and the income of the deceased as skilled troupe member of the Muthukad Magical Entertainers. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Both sides appear to rely on the binding precedent in **Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121)** . We are in ready agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier applicable to the elder claimant and not the younger deceased has to be taken **M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011** -: 4 :- into reckoning while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable for loss of dependency. It is unnecessary to advert to the precedents. The multiplier applicable to the elder dependent/claimant has certainly got to be taken as the elder claimant who has to be compensated for loss of dependency cannot aspire to claim compensation for a longer period than the period for which he would have lived merely because the deceased happened to be younger. We are in agreement that one half of the amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of a bachelor like the deceased in this case. We are of the opinion that the mere fact that an unmarried sister who is evidently dependent on her parents has also been arrayed as one of the claimants cannot persuade to us to accept 1/3[rd] as the personal expenses of the deceased, the incidental dependence of the unmarried sister on the deceased notwithstanding. 5. We do take note of the circumstance that the deceased was a member of the troupe of the Muthukad Magical Entertainers. We have indications to suggest that he was a qualified plumber/wireman. We have indications also to suggest that he was part of the magic troop involved in magical entertainment also. While we agree that the multiplier chosen by **M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011** -: 5 :- the Tribunal is wrong (the Tribunal has taken the multiplier 18 merely looking at the age of the deceased), we are satisfied that the total income of the deceased reckoned by the Tribunal is also unsatisfactory. We agree that only one half of the earning of a deceased bachelor alone can be held to be available for his parents/dependents. We do further note that the Tribunal has not given due credit for the improvement in prospects of the very young deceased. It was very likely that he would have gone up the ladder and would have started earning much higher amount as years rolled by. 6. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that `6,000/- can be reckoned as monthly income, one half can be deducted from the monthly earnings for his personal expenses and that 50% increase can be awarded to duly accommodate the prospective improvement in earnings. We are further satisfied that 13 which is multiplier applicable to younger of the two parents (mother aged 49 years) has also got to be taken. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to an amount of `7,0,2000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and two thousand only) (`6000/- x 150/100 x 12 x 13 **M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011** -: 6 :- x 50/100) towards compensation for loss of dependency. This means that the total amount awarded to the claimants will have to be reduced by `17,928/- (`7,19,928/- minus `7,0,2000/-). ## 8. In the result: - (a) This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. - (b) The impugned award is upheld in all other respects. (c) It is held that the appellant would be entitled only for a total amount of `7,39,500/- (Rupees seven lakhs and thirty nine thousand and five hundred only) i.e., `17,928/- - less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Sd/- **R. BASANT** **(Judge)** **Sd/-** **M.C. HARI RANI (Judge)** **Nan/** **//true copy// P.S. to Judge** # **M.A.C.A. No.784 of 2011** -: 7 :-