High Court appellate court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.10 lakh to Rs.6.48 lakh by adjusting the deceased's monthly income to Rs.10,000 and applying the Pranay Sethi multiplier method for dependency, pain, and suffering.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.6,48,096 with 9% interest; insurer to pay within 30 days with 12% default interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1940
MACA.No. 2847 of 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1710/2014 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IV, KOZHIKODE DATED 09-09-2016
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS
AGED 28,D/O.APPU NAIR,ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARUVANKANDY HOUSE,
P.O.KARAYAD,ARIKKULAM,(VIA)MEPPAYOOR,KOZHIKODE,PIN-67352
BY ADV.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.D.RAJAN, J
M.A.C.A.No.2847 of 2017
..................................... Dated, 7th June 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No.1710 of 2014 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV, Kozhikode by the dependants of the deceased Arun Raj. On 18.5.2014, the deceased Arun Raj met with an accident while riding a motor cycle and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,22,904/- to the dependents. Aggrieved by that, the dependants preferred this appeal.
18.05.2014, the deceased was riding a motor cycle KL 56 D 4474 at Chathamangalam, a lorry TN 75 M 3583 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle, as a result rider of the motor cycle sustained serious injuries, while undergoing treatment at Medical College Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed a written statement and contested the matter. The insurer
admitted insurance of the vehicle. The claimants did not adduce any oral evidence, but their documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.
MACA 2847/2017 2
the pecuniary losses, which is to be suffered by the dependents as a result of the death. But the assessment of damages to the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables. The life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants are the major factors. Secondly the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining period of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period is also relevant. The chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may
MACA 2847/2017 3
not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy. The chances that the deceased might have got better job and earned more income also have to be considered by the Tribunal.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santhosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same
MACA 2847/2017
4
strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
MACA 2847/2017 5
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
MACA 2847/2017 6
of Rs.1,20,000/- is to be deducted from the total compensation. Therefore the balance amount will be Rs.6,48,096/-. The appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.6,48,096/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost. Insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.
This appeal is disposed of as above.
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE
lgk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the monthly income of the deceased, a B.Tech graduate, should be enhanced to Rs.10,000 in the absence of adduced evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.Mekala V. M.Malathi and anotherReferred¶44
V.Mekala V. M.Malathi and another (2014(11) SCC 178) · Who else cites this
National Insurance Company V. Pranay SethiApplied¶44
National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)]
Sarla VermaRelied on¶49
Sarla Verma
Santhosh DeviRelied on¶49
Santhosh Devi
Reshma KumariRelied on¶49
Reshma Kumari
APPU NAIR
K.T.RADHA AMMA
ANJU.A
T.S.RAJESH KUMAR
SASIKUMAR
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
P.D.RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
