High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-02-27Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation R...

Abdurahiman s/o Moosa and others v. Sajitha P and Sathyakumar and Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-02-27
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The 3rd respondent (insurer) is directed to deposit Rs.14,45,300, plus interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation, with proportionate costs, within two months from today. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the fixed ratio, excluding court fee, without delay, as per rules.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation Rs.14,45,300; insurer to deposit with interest within two months; Tribunal to disburse accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdurahiman S/o Moosa
Rasheeda Aged 44 years W/o Abdurahiman
Rajina Aged 26 years W/o Muhammed Shereef
Shabeer Ali Aged 22 years S/o Abdurahiman

Respondents

Sajitha P (W/o Kerala Kumar)
Sathyakumar S/O GopalAn
Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.S. Chandrasekharan
• Sri. M.V. Das
• Smt. Lekshmi Swaminathan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.G. Jayashankar
• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew - SC
• Sri. Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. The appellants—parents and siblings of Shajir Abdurahiman—challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode’s award in OPMV No. 1754 of 2012 for death in a road accident on 27 August 2012 involving a stage carriage. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 4,67,000. On appeal, the High Court undertook a reassessment of damages using well-established Supreme Court precedents. Since the exact income of the deceased could not be proved, the court applied the Ramachandrappa rule, fixing notional income at Rs. 8,500 per month for a 19-year-old in 2012. It applied 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and the Sarla Verma multiplier of 18, with a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses, yielding a loss of dependency of Rs. 12,85,200. Funeral and loss of estate heads were revised to Rs. 18,150 each; loss of consortium was fixed at Rs. 96,800 for the two claimants, with love and affection compensations set aside following Somwati. Pain and suffering was increased to Rs. 25,000. The result is a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 14,45,300. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit the amount with interest within two months, and the Tribunal shall disburse accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 140Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s income at Rs.4,000 per month. Citing Ramachandrappa, they argue for notional income of Rs.8,500 per month where actual job is unproven, especially given the deceased’s age (19) at the time of death. They apply 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and Sarla Verma’s multiplier (18), with a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses, yielding a higher dependency loss (Rs.12,85,200). They seek additional sums for loss of estate and funeral, and for loss of consortium (Rs.96,800 collectively for two petitioners) with a 10% increment every three years, while arguing against separate love-and-affection compensation after consortium. They also urge an enhanced pain-and-suffering head (Rs.25,000) and a consolidated total of Rs.14,45,300, directing deposit within two months for timely disbursement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents support the Tribunal’s income assessment, contending that the fixed notional income of Rs.4,000 per month is reasonable given the evidence. The insurer’s counsel argues that the Tribunal’s income figure is appropriate and relied upon the lack of verifiable earnings. They oppose large increases in heads of compensation and contend adherence to established reductions (e.g., 1/2 for personal living expenses) and the standard application of future prospects and multiplier, while acknowledging liability.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Notional income for unproven job; fixed Rs.8,500/month for 2012 as per the Ramachandrappa principle.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (16) SCC 680	Positive	Used for 40% future prospects and the overall methodology for calculating enhanced compensation.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2009 (6) SCC 121	Positive	Applied multiplier of 18 and 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati and Others	2020 (9) SCC 644	Positive	Restricts love-and-affection awards once loss of consortium has been granted; adopted in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdurahiman s/o Moosa and others v. Sajitha P and Sathyakumar and Oriental Insurance Company Limited and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:23988 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.1754 OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** - **`1 ABDURAHIMAN S/O.MOOSA,`** - **`2 RASHEEDA AGED 44 YEARS W/O.ABDURAHIMAN,`** - **`3 RAJINA AGED 26 YEARS W/O.MUHAMMED SHEREEF,`** ``` 4SHABEER ALI AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHIMAN,[ALL ARE RESIDING AT 148, (7/112B) ILLATH NOORAMTHODE POST, CHEMBUKADAVU KODANCHERY, KOZHIKODE) ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SAJITHA.P W/O.KERALA KUMAR, RESIDING AT 2/569 OCEAN HOUSE, POST PERINGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673001. ``` ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23988 ``` ``` 2SATHYAKUMAR AGED 47 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT KUZHIMBATTIL HOUSE, POST MINI KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673001. ``` ``` 3ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIV.OFFICE, I SEEMA BUILDING, GH ROAD, OPP. KOTTAPARAMBA HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE-673001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW- SC SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23988 ``` ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1754/ 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozikode, are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The O.P. was filed under under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents and siblings of the deceased Shajir Abdurahiman, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.08.2012. According to them, on 27.08.2012, at about 5 p.m., while the deceased was riding a scooter through Mukkam-Agastyamuzhi road, he was hit down by a stage carriage bus driven by 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner , the 2[nd] respondent is the driver and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23988 ``` Rs.5,54,000/- 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A4. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,67,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: _Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?_ 9. Heard Sri.V.S Chandrasekharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23988` learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as Mechanic, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-. Since the petitioners could not prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8500/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 19 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in **National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 18, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was a bachelor who left behind two dependents, towards personal ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23988` and living expense, 1/2 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in **Sarla Verma** (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.12,85,200/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection. The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. In the light of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents, children and spouse) are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners 1& 2 together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.96,800/- (48,400 x2). 14. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in **New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others,** (2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted. ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23988 ``` 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the same day after the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- 16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of **Rs.14,45,300/-,** as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|Rs.1000/-|Rs.1000/-| |2|Damage to clothings and other articles|Rs.1000/-|Rs.1000/-| |3|Funeral expenses|Rs.8,000/-|Rs.18150/-| |4|Loss of love and affection|Rs.20,000/-|NIL| |5|Pain and suffering|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.25,000/-| |6|Loss of dependency|Rs.4,32,000/-|Rs.12,85,200/-| |7|Loss of estate|NIL|Rs.18150/-| ``` MACA NO. 1142 OF 2014 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** |`2025:KER:23988` 8 Loss of consortium NIL Rs.96,800/- **Total** **Rs.4,67,000/-** **Rs.14,45,300/-** Enhanced Rs.9,78,300/-|`2025:KER:23988` 8 Loss of consortium NIL Rs.96,800/- **Total** **Rs.4,67,000/-** **Rs.14,45,300/-** Enhanced Rs.9,78,300/-|`2025:KER:23988` 8 Loss of consortium NIL Rs.96,800/- **Total** **Rs.4,67,000/-** **Rs.14,45,300/-** Enhanced Rs.9,78,300/-|`2025:KER:23988` 8 Loss of consortium NIL Rs.96,800/- **Total** **Rs.4,67,000/-** **Rs.14,45,300/-** Enhanced Rs.9,78,300/-| |---|---|---|---| |8|Loss of consortium|NIL|Rs.96,800/-| ||**Total**|**Rs.4,67,000/-**|**Rs.14,45,300/-**| ||Enhanced|Rs.9,78,300/-|| 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of **Rs.14,45,300/-,** (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty five thousand three hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- ## **C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE** vnk/-