Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Palraj.R

Kerala HC27 Jan 2023MACA/507/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal and cross-objections regarding compensation awarded for a motor accident death. The Court reduced Funeral Expenses and Loss of Love and Affection to statutory limits but enhanced Loss of Estate and Dependency benefits, fixing the deceased's income at Rs.9,500/- with 40% future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Funeral Expenses reduced to Rs.15,000; Loss of Love and Affection reduced to Rs.80,000; Loss of Estate enhanced to Rs.15,000; Dependency and Future Economic Benefit enhanced to Rs.19,15,200.

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Palraj.R — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 7TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 507 OF 2018

¶6

(APPEAL AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25-9-17 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT

¶7

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA IN OP(MV)NO.100/2015)

¶8

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P.(M.V).:

¶9

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
KALPETTA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, OFFICE
OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.GEORGE
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE OP(MV):

¶11

1 PALRAJ.R, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAYYA,MARI NIVAS, NEDUMPALA ESTATE PADY, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673577.

¶12

2 MARIYAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.PALRAJ.R, MARI NIVAS, NEDUMPALA ESTATE PADY, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673577.

¶13

3 KAVITHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.PALRAJ.R, MARI NIVAS, NEDUMPALA ESTATE PADY, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673577.

¶14

4 SABITHA, D/O.PALRAJ.R, AGED 26 YEARS, NEDUMPALA PUTHEN KUDI MUKKIL HOUSE, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673577.

¶15

5 SATHEESH, S/O.PALRAJ.R, AGED 24 YEARS, NEDUMPALA PUTHEN KUDI MUKKIL HOUSE, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673577.

¶16

6 JOSEPH AUGUSTINE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, THALIMALA, VYTHIRI POST & TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673576.

¶17

BY ADV.SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

¶18

THIS MACA HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2023, ALONG WITH
CO.86/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶20

-2-

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶24

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 7TH MAGHA, 1944

¶25

CO NO. 86 OF 2018

¶26

(AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.09.2017 IN O.P.(MV)

¶27

NO.100/2015 IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KALPETTA)

¶28

CROSS APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:

¶29

1 PALRAJ.R, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAYYA,MARI NIVAS, NEDUMPALA ESTATE PADY, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (FATHER OF THE DECEASED SANIL.T)

¶30

2 MARIYAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.PALRAJ.R, MARI NIVAS, NEDUMPALA ESTATE PADY, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED SANIL. T)

¶31

3 KAVITHA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.PALRAJ.R, MARI NIVAS, NEDUMPALA ESTATE PADY, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (SISTER OF THE DECEASED SANIL.T)

¶32

4 SABITHA, D/O.PALRAJ.R, AGED 29 YEARS, NEDUMPALA PUTHEN KUDI MUKKIL HOUSE, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (SISTER OF THE DECEASED SANIL. T)

¶33

5 SATHEESH, S/O.PALRAJ.R, NEDUMPALA PUTHEN KUDI MUKKIL HOUSE, MEPPADI POST, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, (BROTHER OF THE DECEASED SANIL T).

¶34

BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

¶35

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶36

-3-

¶37

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.6 & APPELLANT:

¶38

1 JOSEPH AUGUSTINE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, THALIMALA, VYTHIRI POST & TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673576.

¶39

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KALPETTA BRANCH, RAWTHER BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA – 673121.

¶40

BY ADV.SRI.M.A.GEORGE SMT.DEEPA GEORGE

¶41

THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.507/2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶43

-4-

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

[MACA No.507/2018, CO No.86/2018]

¶46

This Appeal has been preferred by the United

¶47

India Insurance Company Ltd. (‘Insurance

¶48

Company’, for short); while the Cross

¶49

Objections,bytheclaimantsin

¶50

OP(MV)No.100/2015, on the files of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta
(‘Tribunal’, for short).

¶51

2.The son of Cross Objectors 1 and 2, who

¶52

was also the brother of Cross Objectors 3 to 5,

¶53

met with an accident and succumbed to the
injuries, which prompted them to file the afore
Original Petition. They claimed a compensation
of Rs.26,08,000/-, limited to Rs.20,00,000/-;
but was awarded Rs.18,68,000/-.

¶54

3.The Insurance Company assails the Award;

¶55

while the Cross Objectors assert that they are

¶56

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶57

entitled to more than what has been awarded by

¶58

the Tribunal.

¶59

between the parties is primarily with respect to

¶60

the income notionally fixed by the Tribunal in

¶61

favour of the deceased; while, the Insurance

¶62

Company also claims that the amounts awarded by

¶63

the Tribunal under the heads “Funeral Expenses”
and “Loss of Love and Affection” are in excess.

¶64

5.The cross objectors, on the other hand,

¶65

contend that, had the income of the deceased

¶66

been properly quantified, the compensation under
the heads “Loss of Dependency and “Loss of
Future Economic Benefit” could be much higher;

¶67

while that awarded under the head “Loss of
Estate” is lower than what has been declared by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

¶68

Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662].

¶69

6.I have examined the evidence on record –

¶70

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶71

which have been handed over across the Bar by
both sides, agreeing that this matter can be
disposed of on the strength of the same; as also
the pleadings on record.

¶72

7.The appellant Insurance Company impugns

¶73

the fixation of notional income of the deceased

¶74

by the Tribunal as being Rs.8,000/-, on the
ground that Ext.A7 - Salary Certificate shows
that it was only Rs.6,500/- at the relevant
time. They further say that not more than
Rs.15,000/- could have been given as funeral
expenses; while only Rs.40,000/- each could have
been given to the parents of the victim towards
“Loss of Love and Affection”, thus being a total
of Rs.80,000/-, instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as has
been presently done. They further argue that,
going by Pranay Sethi (supra), “Loss of Estate”
could not have been more than Rs.15,000/-.

¶75

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶76

-7-

¶77

8.Smt.Deepa George, learned Standing

¶78

Counsel for the Insurance Company, then added
that, in any event, the computation of “Loss of
Dependency” by the Tribunal was in error because

¶79

it has taken 50% as future prospects; while in

¶80

Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been confined to
40% and no more.

¶81

9.As an adscititious argument, Smt.Deepa

¶82

George then maintained that “Loss of Dependency”
could have been computed by the Tribunal only

¶83

reckoning the mother of the victim and not his
father, because he has an elder son also. She
thus prayed that Award of the Tribunal be set
aside to the impugned extent.

¶84

10.The afore arguments of the appellant

¶85

were answered by Smt.Celine Joseph, appearing
for the Cross Objectors, asserting that, going

¶86

by Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC

¶87

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶88

-8-

¶89

236], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rendered it
clear that, in the case of a victim involved in
an accident in the year 2014, his/her salary has
to be reckoned as Rs.9,500/-, even in cases
where it is not properly ascertainable. She then
argued that, as per Ext.A7, Rs.6,500/- is not
the full income of the victim, but only his
basic salary and that it also records that he
was entitled to incentives, which is much more
than what has been reckoned by the Tribunal.

¶90

11.As regards the dependency of the father
of the deceased is concerned, Smt.Celine Joseph
submitted that it has been established, through
undisputed evidence, that he is suffering from
90% disability and was fully dependent on the
victim; and asserted that the Insurance Company
cannot say otherwise, because they led no
evidence to show that his other son had any
income or was capable of taking care of him. She

¶91

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶92

-9-

¶93

submitted that, even going by the worst case
scenario projected by the Insurance Company, one
half of the dependency of the father would have
to be admitted; and therefore, that the Tribunal

¶94

did not err in any manner whatsoever in that
regard. She thus prayed that the amounts granted
under the head “Loss of Dependency”, “Loss of
Future Economic Benefit” be enhanced, reckoning
the salary of the claimant to be Rs.9,500/- in
the year 2014 and with the relevant percentage
towards future prospects.

¶95

12.The rival positions of the parties being
so recorded, there are some aspects among the
contentions, which require not much of an
assessment by this Court, because it is covered
by Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶96

13.As far as the head “Funeral Expenses” is

¶97

concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has limited
it to Rs.15,000/-; while, under the head “Loss

¶98

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶99

-10-

¶100

of Estate”, it is confined to Rs.15,000/-.

¶101

Similarly, the compensation towards “Loss of
Love and Affection” is limited to Rs.40,000/-
per head and hence in this case, it will have to
be confined to Rs.80,000/-.

¶102

14.What remains is the assessment of the

¶103

“Loss of Dependency” and “Loss of Future
Economic Benefit”. In this regard, as I have
seen above, the parties are in variance as to
the income to be adopted in favour of the

¶104

victim, as also his future prospects. On the
question of future prospects, there can be no

¶105

dispute becausePranay Sethi(supra) again

¶106

declares the law that it must be confined only
to 40%, thus leaving this Court to decide only
whether the income of the victim ought to have
been taken as Rs.9,500/-, or lesser.

¶107

15.In this regard, the Tribunal appears to

¶108

have relied upon Ext.A7 - Salary Certificate,

¶109

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶110

-11-

¶111

wherein, it is recorded that the victim was
drawing Rs.6,500/- per annum, along with
incentives. The amounts eligible as incentives

¶112

had not been properly established, but a rough
estimation of the same, according to the Cross
Objectors, would be much more than four or five
thousand rupees per month. When the factors
which guide such aspects are not clear, I am of
the firm view that this Court will be fully
justified in following Ramachandrappa(supra),
which postulates unequivocally that, even in the
case of a “Coolie”, with an unascertainable
income, the standard to be adopted would be
Rs.9,500/- in the year 2014. I see no reason why
the claimant should not be given the said
benefit, particularly when he was working as a
Manager of the Company.

¶113

16.At this time, Smt.Deepa George

¶114

intervened to argue that no amount could have

¶115

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶116

been given for pain and suffering to the

¶117

claimant, since his death was instantaneous. I
am afraid that this Court can find no favour
with this contention because it is on record,

¶118

and as is undisputed, that the claimant died one
day later and hence the amount of Rs.5,000/- is
certainly reasonable.

¶119

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶120

appeal and cross objections in the following
manner:

¶121

(a)The compensation under the head “Funeral

¶122

Expenses” is reduced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
fifteen thousand only), instead of Rs.25,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.

¶123

(b)The compensation under the head “Loss of
Love and Affection” is reduced to Rs.80,000/-

¶124

(Rupees eighty thousand only), instead of
Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶125

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶126

(c)The compensation under the head “Loss of

¶127

Estate” is enhanced as Rs.15,000/- (Rupees

¶128

fifteen thousand only), from Rs.10,000/-.

¶129

(d)The amounts under the heads “Loss of

¶130

Dependency” and “Loss of Future Economic
Benefit” are enhanced as Rs.19,15,200/- (Rupees

¶131

nineteen lakhs fifteen thousand and two hundred
only), reckoning the income of the claimant to
be Rs.9500/-, added with 40% future prospects.

¶132

Resultantly, this appeal and Cross Objection
are disposed of, granting an additional amount
ofRs.1,62,200/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two
thousand and two hundred only), along with
interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the

¶133

date of Original Petition till the date of
realization, to the Cross Objectors; which
shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance
Company before the Tribunal within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy

¶134

MACA No.507/2018 & CO No.86/2018

¶135

of this judgment, failing which, it shall carry

¶136

interest at the rate determined by the Tribunal.

¶137

Sd/-

¶138

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶139

akv

¶140

JUDGE

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Palraj.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Palraj.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.Viswanathan Vs Biju Prabhakar

District Insurance Officer Vs Joy Wilson

Pareethubhava Abdul Rahim Vs Madhavan Nair

Chembakavally Vs Shaji Joseph

Palraj.R Vs Joseph Augustine

K.C.Karthyayani Vs Satheesh