New India Assurance Company Limited vs Ambikadevi

Johnson John, J

These appeals are filed by the 3rd respondent/insurance company and the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 369 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The legal heirs of the deceased Dinesan who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.08.2016 are the appellants in M.A.C.A. No. 789 of 2019 and the 3rd respondent/insurance company is the appellant in M.A.C.A No. 103 of 2019.

The deceased was riding scooter bearing registration No. KL-42-H 5679 through Paravur-Aluva road and KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KL-15-8465 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side caused to hit the scooter and thereby, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The first respondent is the Managing Director of KSRTC and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.

Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.

After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.47,50,200/- to the claim petitioners.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurance company.

Admittedly, the dispute is only regarding the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the amount awarded is excessive and without any basis. But, the learned counsel for the claim petitioners argued that the compensation fixed under various heads are inadequate.

The deceased was aged 50 years and drawing a salary of Rs.46,128/- from his employment as Fire Inspector. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company argued that the Tribunal has not deducted the income tax payable from the annual income while calculating the compensation for loss of dependency. The annual salary income of the deceased will be Rs.5,53,536/-. Both sides conceded that during the relevant period, after standard deduction, tax is payable only for the amount above Rs.4,50,000/- and therefore, the income tax payable is Rs. 15,207/-.

The Tribunal has granted 15% increase towards future prospects. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners pointed out that as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier applicable for persons aged between 46-50 years is 13 and the Tribunal mistakenly adopted the multiplier of 11. Therefore, I find that the correct multiplier to be applied is 13. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.46,61,185/- [(46128 x 12 – 15707) x 2/3 x 13].

10.The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) would show that the reasonable amount payable 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 and that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10% in every three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak & Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above metric awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- towards Loss of Consortium and Rs.18,150/- each towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/- each. The first claim petitioner is the wife. The 2nd and 3rd claim petitioners are daughters of the deceased aged 21 and 18 years respectively.

The learned counsel for the claim petitioners cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade  and  Others  v.  M/s.  I.C.I.C.I.  Lambord  Insurance Company Ltd. [2022 KHC 6790] and the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopinathan K. K [2023 2 KLT 368] and argued  that  the  daughters  of  the  deceased  are  also  entitled  for compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’, even though they are not minors. In Gopinathan (supra), this Court held thus:

In that perspective, the words 'child' or 'children' used in Pranay Sethi (supra) or Nanu Ram (supra) are only reflective of the relationship between the deceased and the claimants and are not to be interpreted in the manner that the said words are defined in special Statutes like the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2017; or the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. When consortium becomes payable to children, it does not mean that it will be only eligible to a girl or boy under the age of 14, as has now been attempted to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel, but even to a person much beyond that age, if the premature death of his/her father/mother is on account of a road accident. I, therefore, am left without doubt that the Tribunal did not err in granting compensation to the claimants under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection', though it should have been titled 'Loss of Consortium'.

In view of the above legal position, I find that the claim petitioners, who are the widow and daughters of the deceased are entitled for compensation towards loss of consortium of Rs.48,400/-each. The learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners pointed out that the Tribunal has not allowed any amount towards pain and sufferings. It is not in dispute that the deceased died on the spot therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, I find that Rs.5,000/-can be allowed as compensation towards pain and sufferings.

In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format herein below :

Sl. No

Particulars

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)

Final Amount Payable

1

Loss of dependency

46,68,136/-

46,61,185/-

2

Loss of estate

15,000/-

18,150/-

3

Funeral expenses

15,000/-

18,150/-

4

Pain and sufferings

NIL

5,000/-

5

Loss of consortium

40,000/-

1,45,200/-

6

Transport to hospital

10,000/-

10,000/-

7

Damage to clothing and articles

2,000/-

2,000/-

Total amount Payable

47,50,136/-

48,59,685/-

. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the claim petitioners is determined as Rs. 48,59,685/-.

In the result, M.A.C.A. No. 103 of 2009 is dismissed and M.A.C.A No. 789 of 2019 is allowed, and the appellants/petitioners in M.A.C.A. No. 789 of 2019 are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs. 48,59,685/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Five. only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs from the respondents. The appellant insurance company shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.