High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-08-12Partial allowance; modified award; enhanced com...

Valsala W/o Late Mohanan; Aswathy; Aswanido LATE Mohanan; Bhaskaran; Ammukkutty (minor represented by mother) v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 637 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2021-08-12
Court Decision / Holding: MACA is allowed in part; the award of the MACT Kollam in OP (MV) No. 1593 of 2011 is modified. The compensation is enhanced to Rs. 13,22,000 with 9% interest, payable by the 3rd respondent insurer; the insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount within two months; upon deposit, the petitioners may release the amount forthwith.
Final Disposition: Partial allowance; modified award; enhanced compensation and deposit deadline.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Valsala W/o Late Mohanan
Aswathy (minor represented by mother)
Aswanido LATE Mohanan (minor represented by mother)
Bhaskaran (minor represented by mother)
Ammukkutty (minor represented by mother)

Respondents

Divisional Manager, MACA NO. 637 OF 2015
M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Pratheesh P
• Smt. Nima Jacob
• Smt. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri George Cherian (Sr.)
• Smt. Latha Susan Cherian
• Smt. K.S. Santhi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Facts: Mohanan died in a motorcycle accident on 21.04.2011 when his bike was struck by an autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent. The claimants sought Rs. 25 lakh as compensation in OP (MV) No. 1593 of 2011 before the MACT, Kollam. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,37,000 with 9% interest. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 6,000 for dependency, arguing Exts. A8–A14 show he was a batching plant operator in Libya earning substantially more, possibly around Rs. 50,000 per month. The insurer opposed higher income, invoking Ramachandrappa to justify a low basis and urging a fixed monthly figure around Rs. 8,000. The evidence did not clearly establish the exact income, but the court observed the deceased’s long Libya tenure and the job title, and chose a lenient approach, fixing Rs. 10,000 per month as the income for calculation, plus 10% future prospects following Pranay Sethi. The loss of dependency was recalculated to Rs. 10,89,000 and loss of consortium to Rs. 2,00,000, with reductions on funeral and other heads per Pranay Sethi. The result was a modified total of Rs. 13,22,000. The appeal was allowed in part; the insurer was directed to deposit the amount within two months, on which the petitioners could release the funds.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Tribunal fixed monthly income of deceased at Rs. 6,000 for dependency, whereas Exts. A8–A14 indicating his work as a batching plant operator in Libya suggested a substantially higher earning, possibly around Rs. 50,000 per month. They pressed that the deceased’s long tenure in Libya and his role warranted a higher monthly income and urged applying 10% future prospects per Pranay Sethi. They sought re-determination of heads of loss, especially to increase loss of consortium, and to adjust funeral expenses and other heads per Pranay Sethi. They relied on the documentary evidence (Exts. A8–A14) to argue for a higher quantum of compensation beyond the Tribunal’s Rs. 8,37,000.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer pressed Ramachandrappa to justify a low monthly income (around Rs. 8,000) and opposed enhancement beyond the Tribunal’s award. They argued the evidence did not clearly establish the actual income, and that the Tribunal’s approach should be conservative, with 8,000 as the monthly income, allowing only limited future prospects. They urged adherence to Pranay Sethi for deductions and adjustments to funeral, love and affection, and care and guidance heads, and contested substantial increases in other heads or the overall corpus.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited as authority for baseline income assessment; the court references the ratio to justify starting with a modest monthly income and then enhances based on Exts A1–A14.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for allowances related to future prospects and other head adjustments; the court applies the Pranay Sethi framework to modify heads such as loss of consortium and to permit 10% future prospects.

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 Valsala W/o Late Mohanan; Aswathy; Aswanido LATE Mohanan; Bhaskaran; Ammukkutty (minor represented by mother) v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; M/S Oriental Insurance Co. 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 A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943 MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1593/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT/S:** 1 VALSALA W/O. LATE MOHANAN, PAYATTTU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU,MANAPPALLY SOUTH, PAVUMBA 2 ASWATHY AGED 12 YEARS D/O. LATE MOHNANAN, PARAYATTU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, PAVUMBA (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT) 3 ASWANIDO.LATE MOHANAN AGED 12 YEARS PARAYATTU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, PAVUMBA (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT) 4 BHASKARAN AGED 73 YEARS F/O.LATE MOHANAN,PARAYATTU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, PAVUMBA (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT) 5 AMMUKKUTTY AGED 63 YEARS M/O. LATE PARAYATTU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, PAVUMBA (MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT) BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.NIMA JACOB SMT.S.SEETHA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** DIVISIONAL MANAGER **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **2** M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KOLLAM691 001 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ADVOCATE K.S SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **3** **JUDGMENT C.R.** The petitioners, who are aggrieved by the award of the MACT, Kollam, in OP (MV). No.1593 of 2011 dated 11.04.2014, have approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The respondent herein is the original 3[rd] respondent before the Tribunal. 2. One Mohanan died in a motor cycle accident occurred on 21.04.2011 at about 8.30 am, while riding his motor cycle, since he was hit down by an autorikshaw driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The claimants claimed Rs.25 lakh as compensation. 3. The insurance company filed a written statement and admitted the policy. Negligence was disputed and quantum of compensation was challenged. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Tribunal, after adducing evidence, passed the impugned award granting Rs.8,37,000/- along with 9% interest. The above award is under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal fixed Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **4** assessing loss of dependency income, though specific plea claiming Rs.50,000/- was raised, supported by documents marked as Exts. A8 to A14. He submitted further that the deceased was a contractual worker doing the job of 'batching plant operator' in Libya and he earned Rs.50,000/- Indian Rupee per month. In support of his contention, Ext.A8 pay slip during December 2010 showing net salary of 1582.146 LYD was produced without disclosing the actual amount as per the value of Indian currency. Ext.A9 produced in this case is the termination of employment certificate. Ext.A11 is the passport of the deceased; Ext.A12 is the document showing posting of the deceased as 'batching plant operator' during March 2005 in Libya. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Ext.A13 series are slips showing transfer of money by the deceased through Western Union Money Transfer. Ext.A14 is the renewal premium receipt issued by the LIC of India dated 12.07.2003. Remittance of Rs.4,502/- could be gathered there from towards the policy taken on 14.07.1997. 6. Learned Counsel for the insurance company vehemently opposed consideration of these documents to fix a higher income in excess of what has been permitted as per the dictum laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** . It is **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **5** submitted that Rs.8,000/- is liable to be fixed following the ratio of the above said ruling and nothing more is liable to be fixed. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioners pressed increase more than Rs.8,000/- on the submission that, going by the documents Exts.A8 to A14, employment of the deceased as 'batching plant operator' in Libya, prior to his death could be gathered. 8. On a scrutiny of Exts. A1 to A14, the same do not suggest what actually was the income of the deceased even as per the documents. In PW1's chief affidavit, more than Rs.40,000/- is stated as the income of the deceased. That would show that PW1 also is not certain about what actually was the monthly income of the deceased. However, the documents if read together, the job of the deceased as 'batching plant operator' could be gathered, though the petitioners miserably failed to establish the technical qualification of the deceased to do the work. However, long tenure of the deceased in Libya as a 'batching plant operator' could be gathered from the documents. Taking note of the said fact, I am inclined to take a lenient view in this matter to enhance the monthly income of the deceased something more than Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, I am inclined to fix Rs.10,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. It is not **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **6** in dispute that 10% addition towards future prospects is also permissible following the ratio in the decision reported in _**National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.**_ [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. Therefore, the loss of dependency income is recalculated as Rs.11,000/x 11 x 12 x ¾ = Rs.10,89,000/-. 9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, Rs.1 lakh is granted as loss of consortium, and in view of the decision in _**Pranay Sethi**_ 's case ( _supra_ ), the same requires to be refixed at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The submission is not opposed, as the same is the ratio in _**Pranay Sethi'**_ **s** decision. Thus, the loss of consortium is recalculated as 40000 x 5 = 2 lakhs. Therefore, Rs.1 lakh more is granted under the head loss of consortium. 10. Coming to the other heads, learned Counsel for the insurance company canvassed deduction, following the ratio in _**Pranay Sethi**_ 's case. Funeral expenses granted by the Tribunal is Rs.25,000/- and the same is required to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. Rs.10,000/- was granted by the Tribunal under the head love and affection and the same is not permissible. Therefore, the said amount also is reduced. Further, Rs.1 lakh was granted under the head loss of care and guidance of the minor children. The same also is not permissible and as such, the said **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** ## **7** ## sum stands deducted. ## Accordingly, the award is modified as follows: |Sl No.|Head of claim|Amount awarded(Rs.)|Modified Amount in Appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transportation to hospital|2000/-|2000/-| |2|Damages to clothing|1000/-|1000/-| |3|Funeral expenses|25,000/-|15,000/-| |4|Compensation for pain and sufferings - Loss of Love and affection|10,000/-|| |5|Compensation for loss of consortium|1,00,000/-|2,00,000/-| |6|Loss of estate|5000/-|15,000/-| |7|Compensation for loss of dependency|5,94,000/-|11,000 x 12 x 11/4 = 10,89,000/-| |8|Loss of care and guidance to minor|1,00,000/-|| ||Total|8,37,000/-|13,22,000/-| ## In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; **MACA NO. 637 OF 2015** **8** b) Modified award passed and the compensation enhanced to the tune of Rs.13,22,000/-(Rupees Thirteen lakh twenty two thousand only ) to be paid by the 3[rd] respondent with 9% interest granted by the Triubunal and the amount shall be deposited by the insurance company being the indemnifier of the insured. c) The respondent/3[rd] respondent insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation as apportioned by the Tribunal within a period of two months from this date. On deposit, the petitioners are at liberty to release the same forthwith. ## **Sd/-** **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** uu 12.08.2021