Death Can’t Be Attributed To Accident For Awarding Compensation In Absence Of Clear Evidence Establishing Link: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that the death cannot be attributed to the accident for awarding compensation in the absence of clear evidence establishing a link between injuries and death.

The Court held thus in a batch of Appeals concerning the proper multiplier to be applied for assessing disability compensation in the case of a claimant who sustained injuries in a motor accident and later died from causes unrelated to the accident and injury.

A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “The Tribunal found that the death of the injured was not caused by the injuries sustained in the accident. We find no materials on record for interfering with the said finding. In the absence of clear evidence establishing a link between the injuries and the death, the death cannot be attributed to the accident for the purpose of awarding compensation.”

Senior Advocate Mathews Jacob, Advocates P. Narayanan, and D. Kishore appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Subhash Cyriac appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The issue in this case was whether in such cases the multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] should be applied, or whether the multiplier should be limited to the actual number of years the person lived. In Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shailaja [2021 (3) KLT 371], the Kerala High Court held that though the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case prescribed a standard procedure with regard to the application of multiplier, the multiplier is not to be mechanically adopted when the injured person in a personal injury case dies pending the claim proceedings due to reasons unconnected with the accident.

When these matters came up for consideration before the Single Judge, entertaining a doubt as to the correctness of the decision in Shailaja case made the reference. In the Reference Order, the Single Judge disagreed with the reasoning in Shailaja case observing that the right to compensation arises the moment the injury occurs, and that a subsequent unrelated death does not affect the substantive right. Hence, the compensation must be determined in accordance with the standardized multiplier method laid down in Sarla Verma, and is not to be adjusted based on later events.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “The Tribunal awarded compensation for permanent disability by applying a multiplier of 4. Though the appellants contended that the actual multiplier, based on the age of the injured, ought to have been applied in view of the law laid down as above, we find no illegality in the award of permanent disability compensation by taking 4 as the multiplier. The Tribunal assessed the permanent disability at 10%. However, applying the law laid down in Ramachandrappa’s case (supra), the monthly income stated in the petition (₹4,500/-) ought to have been taken. On that count, he is entitled to ₹21,600/- (4,500 × 12 × 4 × 10%).”

The Court added that the Tribunal awarded only ₹14,000/- towards loss of earnings for four months and the injured ought to have been granted at least ₹27,000/ towards actual loss of earnings for six months, taking into consideration the serious nature of the injuries sustained.

“Similarly, towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities, we find it just and reasonable to grant an additional ₹5,000/- under each of the said heads. We find no reason to interfere with the award on any other counts”, it said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Appellants are entitled to get an additional amount of ₹27,800/- [(21,600-16,800)+(27,000 14,000) + 10,000].

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Appeals.

Cause Title- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mini Devadas & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:87443)

Click here to read/download the Judgment