High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-11Appeal partly allowed; enhanced total compensat...

Haritha Unni v. Sree Devi and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 218 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Sudha
Judgment Date: 2024-04-11
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The Tribunal’s finding of negligence is affirmed, but the compensation heads are revised with guidance from Ramachandrappa, Pranay Sethi, and Sarla Verma. Notional income is supported by jurisprudence; the conventional heads are enhanced: loss of consortium to the wife and parental consortium for the minor; funeral and estate losses are increased; loss of dependency is recalculated with future prospects (40%) and deductions as per 1/3 rule. The total compensation is increased to ₹8,15,600 from ₹5,39,000, with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the petition date and costs. The first respondent (owner) and second respondent (rider) are directed to deposit the amount with interest and costs before the Tribunal within 60 days; upon deposit, disbursement shall be made to the claimants as per law. Interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced total compensation to ₹8,15,600; liability remains joint and several; deposit before Tribunal within 60 days; Tribunal to disburse upon deposit; interlocutory applications closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Haritha Unni

Respondents

Sree Devi
Meenakshi Amma
Tony Abraham Varghese
Anoop

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manu Ramachandran
• Sri R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• Sri M. Kiranlal
• Sri T.S. Sarath
• Shri Sameer M Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Ansu Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Vehicles Act appeal under section 173 of 1988 filed by Haritha Unni (second claimant) challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, award dated 21 November 2013 in O.P. (MV) No.528/2005 arising from a fatal vehicle collision on 16 April 2004 on the Kottarakara–Thiruvananthapuram MC road near Vamanapuram Bridge. The deceased, Unnikrishnan, riding a motorcycle KL-3K/934, collided with another bike KL-02P/5310 driven by the second respondent, caused by the latter’s rash and negligent riding. The Tribunal held the rider negligent and the owner (first respondent) liable; since there was no insurance, both were cast jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹5,39,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the petition date and costs. The appellant contends that the liability should be joint and several against owner and rider, and seeks enhancement on several heads. She challenges the notional income fixed at ₹4,500/month, arguing deceased’s earning as a photographer (around ₹10,000/month) should be considered. Conventional heads such as loss of consortium, parental consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of love and affection are also urged for higher awards. The High Court, while upholding negligence, partly allows the appeal, relying on Ramachandrappa, Pranay Sethi, and Sarla Verma, to modify heads and increase total compensation to ₹8,15,600 with interest and costs, directing deposit within 60 days and subsequent disbursement by the Tribunal."

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income
Just compensation
Loss of future prospects
Deduction for personal living expenses (1/3)
Loss of consortium
Loss of love and affection
Loss of estate
Funeral expenses
Parental consortium

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that while the Tribunal correctly found negligence on the rider, the owner and rider should be held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation due to lack of insurance and because both were before the court as parties to the accident. The notional income used by the Tribunal (₹4,500/month) should reflect the deceased's potential earnings as a photographer (claimed at ₹10,000/month) but is not proven; thus, higher notional income may be warranted. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the court should ensure just compensation and allow enhanced heads for conventional damages: loss of consortium to the wife (₹40,000) and parental consortium for the minor (₹40,000); funeral expenses (₹15,000); loss of estate (₹15,000); and apply Sarla Verma’s framework for future prospects (40% addition) with 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. The appeal seeks recomputation of dependency losses to reflect higher future prospects and corrected conventional heads.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the accident stemmed from the deceased’s reckless overtaking of a KSRTC bus and that the rider had no intent to injure; they also claimed the deceased did not possess a valid driving license, and the evidence did not establish negligence on the rider’s part beyond the Tribunal’s finding. They did not attend the hearing. The core defence was that negligence lay elsewhere and the award should not be enhanced beyond reasons given by the Tribunal; insurance was absent and liability should be considered in light of those facts.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allianz Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to support the notional income approach and scope of just compensation.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for loss of consortium and other heads of conventional damages; guidance on compensation structure.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Applied for future prospects and deduction; foundational to the dependency computation.

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 Haritha Unni v. Sree Devi and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **MACA NO. 218 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21/11/2013 IN OPMV NO.528 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANT/2ND CLAIMANT:** **HARITHA UNNI AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE UNNIKRISHNAN, KOCHU VEEDU, NEDUVANOOR, AVANEESWAAM RAILWAY STATION P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691508. BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 AND 3, RESPONDENTS:** **1 SREEDEVI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. BHARATHI AMMA, KOCHU VEEDU, NEDUVANOOR, AVANEESWAAM RAILWAY STATION P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691508 (WIFE OF DECEASED). 2 MEENAKSHI AMMA, AGED 81 YEARS D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, VADAKKE VEEDU, ALAYAMON P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691306. (MOTHER OF DECEASED). 3 TONY ABRAHAM VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, S/O.ABRAHAM VARGHESE, MANKUZHIPPANA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNOOR, VAYALA, KARUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691306.** M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 2 **4 ANOOP, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. SASIKUMAR, ASWATHI, NEAR ELAMADU THEATRE, ELAMADU VILLAGE AND P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691533. BY ADV ANSU VARGHESE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 3 ## **C.S.SUDHA, J.** **-------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April 2024** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the second claimant in O.P. (MV)No.528/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 21/11/2013. The respondents herein are the first and the third claimants and the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the petition in brief, are as follows - On 16/04/2004 at 06:30 p.m, deceased Unnikrishnan was riding a motor bike bearing Registration No.KL-3K/934 from Avaneeswaram to Thiruvananthapuram M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 4 through Kottarakara – Thiruvananthapuram M.C.road, and when he reached near Vamanapuram Bridge, bike bearing registration No.KL-02P/5310 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner had a head on collision with the bike driven by the deceased as a result of which the latter was thrown on to the road whereby he sustained injuries including severe head injuries, to which he succumbed. The claimants are the legal heirs and the dependents of the deceased. The first respondent, the registered owner of the offending bike and the second respondent, the rider of the bike, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants. Hence, an amount of ₹7 lakhs was claimed as compensation under various heads. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement denying any negligence on the part of the second respondent. The accident occurred when the deceased in a reckless manner attempted to overtake a K.S.R.T.C bus. The deceased did not have a valid driving license. 4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 5 either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 5. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent resulting in the accident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,39,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and costs from the first respondent owner of the offending bike and his assets. Aggrieved, the second claimant has come up in appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the second claimant/appellant (the claimant). Though notice was duly served to all the respondents, none appeared for them. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that though the Tribunal has found that the accident happened due M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 6 to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent rider of the motor bike, he has not been jointly and severally made liable along with the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, to pay the compensation that has been awarded. This is incorrect and hence requires to be interfered with. On going through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The first respondent is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. That being the position, and in the light of the fact that there is no insurance policy for the offending vehicle, the first and the second respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation ordered. 9. The impugned award is challenged by the claimant on the following grounds- **– Notional Income** It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the amount of ₹4,500/- fixed is too low and therefore the said finding requires interference. In this case, the deceased, the husband of the first claimant and the father M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 7 of the second claimant is stated to have been a photographer. They claimed that his income was ₹10,000/- per month. However, no evidence was let in to substantiate the said aspect. Hence the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹4,500/-. This is in the light of the dictum in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian. Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236** just compensation and therefore I find no reasons to interfere with the same. ## - 10. **Compensation under conventional heads** (a) **Loss of consortium to the wife –** The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹10,000/-. As per the dictum in **National** **Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680,** she is entitled to ₹40,000/- for loss of consortium. (b) **Loss of parental consortium** -The second claimant is admittedly the minor daughter of the deceased. Therefore, towards parental consortium, she is also entitled to ₹40,000/- against ₹10,000/- that has been allowed by the Tribunal under the head compensation for loss of love and affection. M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 8 (c) **Funeral Expenses** – The Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹10,000/-. However, as per the dictum in Pranay **Sethi** ( _Supra_ ), the claimants are entitled to ₹15,000/-. (d) **Loss of estate** - The Tribunal has only granted an amount of ₹5,000/-. In the light of the dictum in **Pranay Sethi** ( _Supra_ ) the claimants are entitled to an amount of ₹15,000/-. **-** 11. **Loss of dependency** It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant that as per the dictum in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121** , the claimants were also entitled to loss of future prospects which has not been granted. The deceased in this case was below 40 years and therefore going by the aforesaid dictum an addition of 40% has to be made towards the established income of the deceased. The deceased has three dependents and hence deduction of 1/3[rd] of his salary is to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, that is, ₹3,000/- (4,500 x 1/3 = 1500; 4500 – 1500 = 3000). Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to ₹7,05,600/- [3000 x 40% = 1200 ; 3000 +1200 = 4200; 4200 x 12 M* x 14 MR* = M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 9 ## 7,05,600/-]. ## 12. The impugned Award is partly modified thus - |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount claimed|Amount awarded by Tribunal|Modified in appeal| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Transportation charges and funeral expenses|₹3000|₹10,000/-|₹15,000/-| |2|Damages to clothing and vehicle|₹1,000/-|-|(No modification)| |3.|Compensation for loss of consortium|₹2,50,000/-|₹10,000/-|₹40,000/- (to the wife)| |4.|Compensation for loss of estate|₹2,00,000/-|₹5,000|₹15,000/-| |5.|Compensation for loss of love and affections||₹10,000/-|₹40,000/- (parental consortium)| |6.|Compensation for loss of dependency|₹2,60,000/-|₹5,04,000/-|₹7,05,600/- (4200 x 12M* x 14 MR*)| ||**Total**|₹7,14,000/-|₹5,39,000/-|₹8,15,600/-| [* M – month; MR - Multiplier] In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹ **2,76,600** /- (total compensation ₹8,15,600/-, that is, ₹5,39,000/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹2,76,600/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and M.A.C.A.No.218 of 2021 10 proportionate costs. The first respondent owner and the second respondent rider of the offending vehicle are directed to deposit the amount with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants at the earliest in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- **C.S. SUDHA JUDGE** Jms