New India Assurance Company Ltd, Branch Office, College Road, Pathanamthitta V. Julie Varghese and Jestina and Stalin and Mathai Varghese and Rahelamma Varghese

MACA/2209/2015

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals related to a motor accident that resulted in the death of Saji Mathew Varghese. The appeals were filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, which had previously determined the compensation amount for the deceased's family. The appellants in MACA No. 2209 of 2015, the claimants, challenged the inadequacy of the compensation, while the appellant in MACA No. 33 of 2015, the insurer, contested the quantum of the compensation. The High Court's decision addressed the computation of the deceased's income for compensation purposes, adjustments for excess compensation previously awarded, and the appropriate amounts for various heads of compensation such as loss of dependency, loss of estate, and pain and suffering.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798974 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Company Ltd v Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Company Ltd v Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662], Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others (2018 ACJ 2782)
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A N SANTHOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAN KALIYATH
• Keywords: Compensation; Funeral expenses; Future prospects; Income Tax Return; Loss of consortium; Loss of dependency; Loss of Love and Affection; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941 MACA.No.33 of 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1657/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 21.08.2014 APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE,COLLEGE ROAD,PATHANAMTHITTA REP BY THE MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,KOCHI 682 011 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5: 1 JULIE VARGHESE AGED 39 YEARS W/O. SHAJI MATHEW VARGHESE,PARAMPATHETHU VEEDU,THANNITHODU POST,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -689101 2 JESTINA, AGED 14 YEARS, DOB 24-07-2000,D/O. SHAJI MATHEW VARGHESE -DO 3 STALIN, AGED 9 YEARS, DOB 25-10-2006,S/O. SHAJI MATHEW(MINORS 2 AND 3 REP BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JULIE VARGHESE -DO- 4 MATHAI VARGHESE, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE,PARAMPATHETHU VEEDU,-DO 5 RAHELAMMA VARGHESE AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.MATHAI VARGHESE, -DO BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 TO R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.2209/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941 MACA.No.2209 of 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1657/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 21-08-2014 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 JULIE VARGHESE, W/O. LATE SAJI MATHEW VARGHESE, PARAMPATHETHU VEEDU,THANITHODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 JESTINA, D/O. LATE SAJI MATHEW VARGHESE, AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR -DO- -DO- 3 STALIN, AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR S/O. LATE SAJI MATHEW VARGHESE -DO- -DO- (APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT) 4 MATHAI VARGHESE, F/O. LATE SAJI MATHEW VARGHESE, -DO- -DO- 5 RAHEELAMMA VARGHESE, M/O. LATE SAJI MATHEW VARGHESE, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 TO R5 RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT: THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. COLLEGE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.33/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 M.A.C.A Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 --------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Among the appeals, M.A.C.A No.2209 of 2015 is by the claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal challenging the inadequacy of the compensation fixed for them by the Tribunal, and M.A.C.A No.33 of 2015 is by the insurer in the said proceedings challenging the quantum of the compensation. 2. One Saji Mathew Varghese aged 34 years died in a motor accident took place on 30.09.2006. It was stated in the claim petition that he was running a tyre-remolding unit at Pune. A sum of Rs.18,88,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. His wife, two children and parents were the claimants in the proceedings. The Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, granted to the claimants a sum of Rs.16,72,000/- by way of compensation. As noted, both the claimants as also the insurer in the proceedings are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and hence these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants as also the learned counsel for the insurer in the proceedings. 4. It is seen that the Tribunal has reckoned the income of MACA.Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 the deceased at Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of dependency. Thereupon, the Tribunal has added 50% of the same to the multiplicand towards future prospects. In so far as the deceased was not on a permanent employment, the Tribunal ought not have added 50% of the income to the multiplicand towards future prospects. Be that as it may. Ext.A10 is the income tax return filed by the deceased for the previous year 2004-05. Ext.A11 is the income tax return filed by the deceased for the previous year 2003-04. The total income disclosed in Ext.A11 is Rs.65,161/- and the total income disclosed in Ext.A10 is Rs.80,339/-. The accident was after the previous year 2005-2006. The return, if any, filed by the deceased during the said year is not on record. As the income of the deceased was increased by about 15,000/- in the year 2004-2005, the income of the deceased for the year 2005-2006 can be reckoned, according to me, approximately at Rs.95,000/-. If that be so, the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of dependency can be reckoned at Rs.8,000/-. If compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency is worked out reckoning the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- and adding 40% of the same towards future prospects, applying the multiplier '16' and deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses, the compensation payable to the claimants under that head would come to Rs.16,12,800/- (8000x140/100x12x16x3/4). The Tribunal has MACA.Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 granted only a sum of Rs.12,96,000/- under that head. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.3,16,800/- under that head. It is seen that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal towards loss of estate. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 and having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2006, I am of the view that the Tribunal could have granted a sum of Rs.12,500/- under that head. The claimants are therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Towards pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimants. According to me, a sum of Rs.10,000/- could have been granted by the Tribunal under that head. The claimants are therefore, entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head. Thus, the total additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.3,24,300/-. 5. It is seen that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, in so far as the accident is one that took place in the year 2006, Rs.12,500/- would have been the ideal compensation payable for the claimants for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- would have been the ideal compensation payable to the wife of the deceased towards MACA.Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 loss of consortium. In other words, Rs.72,500/- granted by the Tribunal under those heads is in excess. Again, it is seen that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- to the claimants towards compensation for loss of love and affection, as against a claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others (2018 ACJ 2782), I am of the view that the Tribunal could have granted Rs.50,000/- each to the children of the deceased and Rs.40,000/- each to the parents of the deceased by way of compensation under that head. In other words, Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal under that head is also in excess. The total excess compensation granted by the Tribunal would, therefore, work out to be Rs.1,22,500/-. 6. If the excess compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is adjusted against the additional compensation to which they are found entitled, the net additional compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.2,01,800/-. In the result, the appeals are disposed of granting to the claimants in the proceedings a further sum of Rs.2,01,800/- by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimants will be entitled to interest for the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is, however, made clear that the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the enhanced compensation granted, for the period of delay in filing the appeal, as ordered on 11.08.2017 in C.M. MACA.Nos.33 & 2209 of 2015 Application No.2495 of 2015 in M.A.C.A.No.2209 of 2015. The parties are at liberty to move the Tribunal for directions as regards deposit of the additional amount of compensation granted and for the disbursal thereof. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR Mn JUDGE "