Aisha Ramsi and Others v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Limited

``` 2025:KER:23537 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.07.2018 IN OPMV NO.463 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** - **`1 AISHA RAMSI, AGED 24 YEARS W/O SALAHUDEEN, ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY.`** - **`2 MUHAMMEDNIHAL, AGED 5 YEARS`** ``` S/O.SALAHUDEEN, (MINOR), DATED OF BIRTH 17.04.2010, ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY REP. BY MOTHER AISHA RAMSI, W/O.SALAHUDEEN ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY. ``` - **`3 NEBHAN, (MINOR), AGED 2 YEARS S/O.SALAHUDEEN, DATED OF BIRTH 29.06.2013, ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY REP. BY MOTHER AISHA RAMSI, W/O.SALAHUDEEN ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY.`** - **`4 ZACHARIYAMOULAVI, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDMOULAVI, ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY,`** - **`5 RASHEEDA, AGED 47 YEARS W/O.ZACHARIYAMOULAVI, ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY,`** ## **`BY ADV ELSON SIMON`** ``` MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23537 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LIMITED, ATP TOWERS, NO-12-A, 5TH FLOOR, BYE PASS ROAD, MADURAI 625 010. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER- SC`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23537 ``` ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 25[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.463/ 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant herein. (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 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and parents of the deceased Salahudheen, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.03.2016. According to them, on 07.03.2016, at about 7.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, a tipper lorry bearing reg. No. KL-17/A3446 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on 08.03.2016, while under treatment. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner 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. 3641 OF 2018 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23537 ``` Rs.61,70,000/-(limited to 50,00,000) 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 oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A14 and B1. 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.21,48,405/- 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.Elson Simon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K Panicker, 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. 3641 OF 2018 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23537` learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was running a driving school. In order to prove the same they have examined PW1. PW1 deposed that he was conducting a driving school in partnership with the deceased for about 6 years. The petitioners could not produce any documents to prove the existence of such a partnership. However from the evidence of PW1 it is revealed that the deceased was running a driving school. At the same time, there is no evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased. 11. Since, 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 2016 will come to Rs.10500/-, considering the fact that the deceased was conducting a driving school, his notional income is fixed at Rs.11500/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 29 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 17, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the ``` MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23537` deceased was married who left behind 5 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/4 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.24,63,300/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affection. 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 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 together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- (48,400 x 5). 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. 3641 OF 2018 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23537` 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date next 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.28,52,205/-** , as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by<br>Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded in<br>Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|Rs.19,27,800/-|Rs.24,63,300/-| |2|Expenses for transport|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.5,000/-| |3|Damage to clothes|Rs.1000/-|Rs.1000/-| |4|Funeral expenses|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.18150/-| |5|Love and affection|Rs.50,000/-|NIL| |6|Pain and suffering|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.25,000/-| |7|Loss of estate|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.18150/-| |8|Treatment expenses|Rs.79,605/-|Rs.79,605/-| |9|Loss of consortium|Rs.40,000/-|Rs.2,42,000/-| ||Total|Rs.21,48,405/-|**Rs.28,52,205/-**| ``` MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23537 ``` Enhanced Rs.7,03,800/- 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of **Rs.28,52,205/-** (Rupees Twenty eight lakhs fifty two thousand two hundred and five 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/-