Allowed

*Nirmala Devi v. N.K. Thomas

Kerala HC17 Mar 2023MACA/1972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Enlisting National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Varma, the Court rejected the split multiplier method for loss of dependency. It enhanced compensation to Rs. 35 lakh for dependency, eliminated Rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering, and reduced other heads, resulting in an enhanced payment of Rs. 1

What did the court decide?

Appellants entitled to receive Rs. 12,61,750/- as enhanced compensation, deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest.

*Nirmala Devi Vs N.K. Thomas — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY,THE17THDAYOFMARCH2023/26THPHALGUNA,1944

¶5

MACANO.1972OF2016

¶6

AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINOPMV789/2014OFMOTORACCIDENTS
CLAIMSTRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. *NIRMALA DEVI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. LATE SOMASHEKARAN NAIR, KALAYIL PUTHENPRARMBIL SOUPARNIKA HOUSE, PALATHARAKADAVU BHAGOM, KUZHIMATTOM PO, PANCHIKADU *( DIED).

¶9

2. * (AKHIL S. SHEKAR, AGED:19 YEARS, KALAYIL PUTHENPARAMBIL SOUPARNIKA HOUSE, PALATHARAKADAVU BHAGOM, KUZHIMATTOM PO, PANCHIKADU.

¶10

3.ARYAS.SHEKAR,AGED:15YEARS
(MINOR),KALAYILPUTHENPARAMBILSOUPARNIKAHOUSE,
PALATHARAKADAVUBHAGOM,KUZHIMATTOMPO,PANCHIKADU.
REPRESENTEDBY1STPETITIONERNIRMALADEVI,AGED:50
YEARS,W/OLATESOMESHEKARANNAIR,KALAYIL
PUTHENPARAMBILSOUPARNIKAHOUSE,PALATHARAKADAVU
BHAGOM,KUZHIMATTOMPO,PANCHIKADU)*LEGALHEIRSOF
DECEASED1STAPPELLANT.

¶11

(APPELLANTS2AND3ARETHELEGALHEIRSOFTHEDECEASED
FIRSTAPPELLANTASPERMEMODTD.22.5.2022ANDTHATIS
RECORDEDASPERORDERDTD.1/7/22INMACA1972/16)

¶12

BYADVS.

¶13

SRI.K.A.HASHIM

¶14

SRI.M.I.ISMAIL

¶15

MACA No.1972 of 2016

¶16

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶18

1. N.K. THOMAS, S/O KURIAKOSE, NADAYIL HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR PO, KURICHY, CHANGANACHERRY-686532.

¶19

2. MATHEW ABRAHAM, PATHIYAMADAM HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR PO, KURICHY, CHANGANACHERRY-686532.

¶20

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶21

BYADV.SRI.A.RGEORGE.

¶22

THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEEN
FINALLYHEARDON09.03.2023,THECOURTON17.03.2023
DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

MACA No.1972 of 2016

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

MACA No.1972 of 2016

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2023

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in OP(MV) No.789 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, assailing the award on the ground of inadequacy of

¶30

compensation.

¶31

The appellants are the wife and children of Sri.Somasekharan Nair who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.01.2014. While Sri.Somasekharan Nair was driving his car, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL 33/C 6173 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, rammed into the car, and he sustained fatal injuries, and later died at hospital. The appellants/legal heirs of the deceased approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakh. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.23,96,550/-. Hence this appeal.

¶32

¶33

MACA No.1972 of 2016

¶34

The 1^st respondent was the driver, 2^nd respondent was the owner and 3^rd respondent was the insurer of the offending tipper lorry. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The accident, death and the

¶35

policy of the offending vehicle were not disputed by the 3^rd respondent/ insurer.

¶36

No oral evidence was adduced from either side before the

¶37

Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B3 were marked.

¶38

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.

¶39

Heard Sri.K.A Hashim, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.R George, learned counsel appearing for the contesting 3^rd respondent.

¶40

Pending appeal, the 1^st appellant died and appellants 2 and 3 were recorded as the legal heirs of deceased 1^st appellant, as per memo dated 22.05.2022.

¶41

The deceased Somasekharan Nair was working as Sub Inspector of Police (Hr.Gr) at Changanassery Police Station. He was aged 54, earning monthly salary of Rs.39,361/-. Learned Tribunal accepted Ext.A7 salary certificate to take his monthly salary as Rs.38,441/-. Since the deceased was a Government servant due to

¶42

MACA No.1972 of 2016 5

¶43

retire at the age of 56, relying on the decision Valsa and others vs. Ulahannan Thomas and others (2015 (1) KLT 781), the learned Tribunal split his salary and applied the multiplier to assess compensation for loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal was of the view that, a Government servant to retire on a particular day on superannuation at the age of 56, is a special circumstance to adopt the calculation based on Valsa’s case cited supra. Deceased Somasekharan Nair had to retire in April 2015. That was taken as a special circumstance to apply split salary.

¶44

The Apex Court has time and again reminded and deprecated the practice of applying the split multiplier. In R. Valli and others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [(2022) 5 SCC 107], the Apex Court held that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [AIR 2017 SC 5157] affirming the judgment Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2010 (2) KLT 802). The Apex Court was pleased to adopt the multiplier of 11 without any split in the case of a 54 year old man, who had to retire at the age of 58. So, in the case on hand also, the learned Tribunal went

¶45

MACA No.1972 of 2016 6

¶46

wrong in applying the salary splitting into two and then applying the multiplier, taking retirement of the deceased on superannuation as a special circumstance.

¶47

As per Ext.A7 salary certificate, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.38,441/-. After deducting 10% towards income tax, his remaining salary would be Rs.34,597/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 54 with a permanent job, 15% addition towards future prospects is to be allowed. Then his monthly salary would become Rs.39,787/- (34597+15%). Since he was having wife and two children, 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, his balance income would be Rs.26,525/-. The multiplier applicable is 11, as he was aged 54. So, the loss of dependency would have been assessed as Rs.35,01,300/- (26525x12x11). The appellants were already awarded Rs.19,49,550/-. So, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.15,51,750/- as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶48

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent pointed out that the award of the Tribunal under various heads exceeds the eligible amount, and while awarding compensation for loss of dependency, rejecting application of split salary and multiplier, the excess amount

¶49

MACA No.1972 of 2016 7

¶50

awarded under various other heads also has to be adjusted.

¶51

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/-. This being a death case, the legal heirs were not entitled to get compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased, based on the decision Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (2021 SCC Online SC 691). So, Rs.15,000/awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is liable to be deducted.

¶52

Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2 lakh and under loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh. As per Pranay Sethi’s case cited supra, the wife and children of the deceased are entitled to get loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, which will come to Rs.1,20,000/- in total. So, Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in excess under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of consortium’ is liable to be refunded.

¶53

Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. The appellants were entitled to get Rs.15,000/- only and so, they are liable to refund Rs.10,000/-, which was in excess of the eligible amount.

¶54

Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh. But,

¶55

going by Pranay Sethi’s case cited supra, the appellants were entitled

¶56

MACA No.1972 of 2016

¶57

¶58

to get Rs.15,000/- only. So, Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is in excess of the eligible amount, and therefore, the appellants are liable to refund that amount.

¶59

The compensation awarded under other heads needs no

¶60

interference.

¶61

Head of claim (1)	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (2)	Amount awarded in appeal (3)	Amount deducted in appeal (4)	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation (5)
Loss of dependency	Rs.19,49,550/-	Rs.35,01,300/-	-	Rs.15,51,750/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.15,000/-	-	Rs.15,000/-	-
Loss of love and affection/ loss of consortium	Rs.3,00,000/-	Rs.1,20,000/-	Rs.1,80,000/-	-
Funeral expenses	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.10,000/-	-
Loss of estate	Rs.1,00,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.85,000/-	-
	Total		Rs.2,90,000/-	Rs.15,51,750/-
Enhancement a	fter adjusting ex	cess payment: (1	551750-290000)=	Rs.12,61,750/-

¶62

In the result, the appellants are entitled to receive Rs.12,61,750/- as enhanced compensation, after deducting the excess amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

MACA No.1972 of 2016

¶64

¶65

The liability of the 3^rd respondent/insurer to compensate the appellants is not in dispute. The 1^st appellant is no more. So, the award amount has to be shared equally among appellants 2 and 3. The 3^rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.12,61,750/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (except 58 days of delay in filing the appeal), in the Bank Account of the appellants 2 and 3 in equal share, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶66

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

smp

*Nirmala Devi v. N.K. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

*Nirmala Devi v. N.K. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rejitha Jagan Vs Thangal Kunju

Kalavathy Vs Mohammed P T

Ratheesh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Bridget Vs Vinod

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Saraswathy

Badharudheen & Anr. Vs Deepu K. Mathew & Ors.