High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2016-10-25The appeal is partly allowed; enhanced compensa...

Valli and Anju v. Managing Director KSRTC and The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.2851 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2016-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed; the appellants are entitled to an additional compensation of ₹2,76,000, with 8% interest from the date of the petition till realization. The second respondent (insurer) is directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. The Tribunal shall realise the balance court fee payable in view of the grant of additional compensation.
Final Disposition: The appeal is partly allowed; enhanced compensation by ₹2,76,000 with 8% interest from the date of petition; deposit within two months; no costs; Tribunal to realize balance court fee on the enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Valli
Anju

Respondents

Managing Director KSRTC, Trivandrum
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. A. N. Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. C. Chacko, SC
• Sri. A. A. Ziyad Rahman

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court decision, in MACA No. 2851 of 2016, arises from an appeal by Valli and Anju challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur’s award in OPMV 17/2012 (dated 22-04-2016) concerning the death of Mohanan in a road accident on 3 November 2011. The petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for loss of dependency and loss of consortium on the death of the appellant’s husband/father. The respondents are the Managing Director KSRTC and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. The court notes there is no dispute about the accident or insurance coverage and focuses on quantum. The Tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹5,000, prompting the appellants to urge enhanced compensation. The appellants contend the income fixation is erroneous and should follow the notional income approach, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, and propose ₹7,000 per month. The court ultimately allows enhancement on two heads: loss of dependency and loss of consortium. It re-fixes monthly income at ₹7,000, recalculates loss of dependency to ₹6,16,000 (the Tribunal had ₹4,40,000), and, after crediting the earlier award, grants ₹1,76,000 more. It also awards ₹1,00,000 for loss of consortium per Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54. The appellants receive an additional ₹2,76,000 with 8% interest from the petition date; costs are denied; the Tribunal will realise the balance court fee on the enhanced amount.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹5,000, resulting in inadequate compensation for loss of dependency. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, they contended income should be treated as notional and adjusted for the deceased’s age (50) and the accident year (2011); they proposed ₹7,000 per month for calculation. Although occupation/income evidence was not conclusively established, the court may adopt the notional approach as guided by the cited decision. On recalculation, loss of dependency would be ₹6,16,000 (versus ₹4,40,000 awarded), leaving ₹1,76,000 additional compensation. For loss of consortium, they urged a minimum₹1,00,000 per Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54. They asserted the Tribunal’s ₹10,000 awarded for loss of estate and consortium was inadequate. They sought the additional ₹2,76,000 (₹1,76,000 for dependency + ₹1,00,000 for consortium) with 8% interest, deposit within two months, and no costs, with proper court-fee adjustments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued there was no credible evidence of the deceased’s occupation/income to justify a higher monthly income; the Tribunal’s fixation of ₹5,000 per month should stand absent clear proof. They urged cautious application of Ramachandrappa’s notional income principle and contended the appellants failed to prove actual earnings, so the decision to enhance should be constrained. While Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 supports loss of consortium, they argued the evidence did not warrant a drastic increase beyond what the facts support, and that the policy coverage and appropriate court-fee adjustments must be balanced. They pressed for maintaining the Tribunal’s award or, at most, modest enhancement, consistent with the evidence and statutory framework, without unduly inflating damages against insurer’s liability.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Mentioned Only	Cited as guiding principle for notional income fixation; the court treats it as guidance rather than binding precedent.
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others	(2013) 9 SCC 54	Positive	Applied directly to grant a minimum ₹1,00,000 for loss of consortium to surviving spouse.

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 Valli and Anju v. Managing Director KSRTC and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 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 TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938 ## MACA.No. 2851 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 17/2012 of MACT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 22-04-2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- 1. VALLI - W/O.LATE MOHANAN, KUNNILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, KARUMALLUR, KARUMALLUR VILLAGE, PARVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANJU - D/O.LATE MOHANAN, KUNNILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, KARUMALLUR, KARUMALLUR VILLAGE, PARVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH ## SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 -------------------------------------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, TRIVADNRUM-695 001. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMAPNY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, REMA PLAZA, NEAR AYYAPAN COIL, S.S.COIL ROAD, THAMBANOOR, TRIVADNRUM-695 001. R1 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. R2 BY ADV.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **========================== M.A.C.A. No.2851 OF 2016 ==========================** Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** _Ravikumar, J._ This appeal is filed by the petitioners on being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.(MV). No.17 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur. They filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Mohanan, the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3.11.2011. Since there is no dispute regarding the accident, the cause of the accident as also the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-156780, we do not think it necessary to deal with such aspects and **M.A.C.A.2851/2016** 2 therefore, the only question to be considered in this appeal is regarding the entitlement of the appellant to enhanced compensation. 2.We have heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri.A.A.Ziyad Rahman, learned counsel for the second respondent. 3.After considering the rival contentions and perusing the impugned award, we are of the view that an enhancement of compensation is required under two heads, namely, compensation for 'loss of dependency' and 'loss of consortium'. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the erroneous fixation of the monthly income that resulted in denial of just compensation. The accident occurred on 3.11.2011 and the deceased Mohanan was then aged 50 years. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income only as `5,000/-. **M.A.C.A.2851/2016** 3 4.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that despite taking up specific averments regarding occupation and income of the deceased, the appellants had failed to adduce evidence to establish the same and therefore, fixation of the monthly income as above cannot be said to be so meagre or faulty warranting an interference. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the case of an accident occurred in the year 2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court fixed the monthly income for calculation purpose notionally at `4,500/- (See the decision in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236].** In such circumstances, it can be taken as guidance in the matter of fixation of monthly income. Taking into account the year of the accident and the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, we are of the view that it is only proper and just to fix the monthly income of the deceased for calculation purpose as `7,000/-. Accordingly, it is fixed. Evidently, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased and deduction was also correctly made from the personal **M.A.C.A.2851/2016** 4 expenses of the deceased reckoning the number of dependents. In such circumstances, with the re-fixed monthly income, the amount payable towards loss of dependency has to be re-assessed. On such reassessment, the appellants are entitled get an amount of `6,16,000/-. But, the Tribunal has already granted `4,40,000/-. After deducting the said amount, the appellants would be entitled to get `1,76,000/additionally under that head. The Tribunal has granted only an amount of `10,000/- towards loss of estate and consortium. We are of the view that the amount already granted under the combined head of loss of estate and consortium can be confined to compensation for loss of estate and the amount payable towards loss of consortium has to be considered in the light of the decision in **Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others [(2013) 9 SCC 54].** In the light of the said decision, the surviving spouse is entitled to get a minimum of `1,00,000/- in a claim for compensation for accidental death under section 166, M.V.Act. In such circumstances, `1,00,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. In the light of the above discussions, the **M.A.C.A.2851/2016** 5 appellants would be entitled to get an additional compensation of `2,76,000/-. It is made clear that the first appellant alone would be entitled to get the amount granted under the head loss of consortium. The additional compensation will carry 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. The second respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. The Tribunal shall realise the balance court fee payable in view of the grant of additional compensation. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.2851/2016** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.2851/2016** 7 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**