Minimol Anu @ Mini, Also Called K.Minimol vs Thomas Chirayathu Thadathil

T.R. Ravi, J

The husband of the 1st appellant died in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and the appellants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The appellants had preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of ₹1 crore. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹91,76,000/- as compensation. The appellants have preferred this appeal, praying for enhanced compensation.

Heard Sri T.R.Harikumar, Counsel for the appellants and Sri Mathews Jacob, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Jacob Mathew on behalf of the respondent/insurer.

The counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting a sum of ₹50,000/- per month as the notional income of the deceased. It is submitted that at the time of the death, the deceased was drawing an annual salary of ₹9,01,850/-, which is proved by Exhibit A42. It is also submitted that Ext.A64 will show that the salary that was being paid at the time of death was ₹63,850/- per month. The counsel submits that when there is clear evidence to show that the monthly income of the deceased was more than ₹75,000/-, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted ₹50,000/- as the notional monthly salary. It is also contended that having regard to the profession of the deceased, future prospects ought to have been calculated at 100% and not 30%. The counsel for the insurer submitted that future prospects should not have been taken at 30% and since it was not a permanent job, only 25% should have been considered as future prospects. It is also submitted that no amount was deducted towards income tax while granting the compensation. Another contention raised by the counsel for the insurer is that the Tribunal went wrong in awarding amounts of compensation under the conventional heads. It is pointed out that an amount of ₹25,000/-was granted towards funeral expenses while the appellants were entitled only to ₹15,000/- under the head. It is also submitted that ₹10,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferings to which the legal representatives cannot have a claim in the light of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in [2020 (3) KHC 760]. It is further submitted that towards consortium and love and affection an amount of ₹3,50,000/- has been granted under 3 heads, though the maximum amount that can be awarded under the head loss of consortium in the case of 5 claimants was ₹2 lakhs. The counsel fairly submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted ₹15,000/-towards loss of estate instead of ₹10,000/-. Having considered the contentions on either side, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to succeed in this appeal and enhanced compensation is payable to them. In the light of Exhibits A42 and A64, the monthly salary of the deceased is to be reckoned as ₹63,850/-. Adding 30% towards future prospects, the monthly income for the purpose of calculating the compensation for loss of dependency should be ₹83,005/- rounded off to ₹83,000/-. Applying the multiplier of '15' and deducting one fourth towards personal expenses, the amount payable under the head compensation for loss of dependency would be ₹1,12,05,000/- (83000x12x15x3/4). After deducting the amount of ₹87,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants will be entitled to an additional compensation of ₹24,30,000/- under the head. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses is liable to be deducted by a sum of ₹10,000/-. The amount of ₹10,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is liable to be deducted from the total compensation. A sum of ₹1,50,000/- is to be deducted from the total amount awarded towards loss of consortium. An amount of ₹5,000/- is to be granted as additional compensation under the head loss of estate. Thus, a total amount of ₹1,65,000/- is to be deducted from the compensation payable. The total amount payable as additional compensation will hence be ₹22,65,000/-. In the light of liability towards income tax, I am of the opinion that 10% of the additional compensation awarded in this appeal is to be deducted towards income tax.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are awarded an additional compensation of ₹20,38,500/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred only), with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 14.11.2008 till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellants are liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellants shall be in accordance with law.