High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-02-18Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation to...

Liya, Varghese and Mary v Abdulrahiman, Raju K., Sathikumar N. and The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.3875/2018

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:17457

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-02-18
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The Court recalculated compensation, holding the deceased’s annual income at Rs. 9,60,000 with 40% future prospects, applying a 16-year multiplier and 1/3 deduction for dependents, resulting in a revised dependency loss of Rs. 1,25,44,000. The Tribunal’s awards for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium were adjusted with Rs. 18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs. 1,45,200 collectively for loss of consortium; Rs. 25,000 was awarded for pain and suffering. Love and affection damages were not granted beyond the sums already included following Somwati. The total compensation payable to petitioners is Rs. 1,27,52,500, with interest at the Tribunal rate from the petition date, excluding 160 days’ delay, and costs. The 4th respondent is to deposit this amount within two months, with disbursement to petitioners in fixed ratios by the Tribunal’s order.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,27,52,500; insurer directed to deposit within two months; amount to be disbursed to petitioners with interest as ordered; costs proportionate.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Liya
Varghese
Mary

Respondents

Abdulrahiman
Raju K.
Sathikumar N.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Baby Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Binoy Vasudevan
• Adv. O.D. Sivadas
• Adv. N.S. Mohammed Usman (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is MACA No. 3875 of 2018, a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from O.P.(M.V.) No.71 of 2015 before the II Additional MACT, Palakkad, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased Pathrose died in a motor vehicle collision on 25 February 2014 when a bus (KL-07-AJ-0861) driven by the 1st respondent collided with the Maruthi Zen car in which he and his wife were travelling. Petitioners (wife and parents) challenged the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation, contending the income of the deceased was higher than the Tribunal’s notional assessment and that the award did not properly reflect future prospects, deductions, and heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses, and love and affection. The Tribunal had fixed negligence on the part of the bus driver, awarding Rs. 38,55,344. The appellants sought enhancement by relying on documentary evidence (Form B Register) showing higher earnings and by invoking established medical-legal presumptions on income and statutory future prospects (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma). The Court considered income of Rs.80,000 per month, applied 40% future prospects, and 16 as multiplier, with 1/3 deduction for dependents, resulting in a revised compensation of Rs.1,27,52,500, after allowing adjustments for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, while disallowing love and affection under Somwati. The appeal was allowed in part with directions to deposit the enhanced amount by the insurer and disburse to petitioners within two months, with interest at the Tribunal rate (8% on enhanced amount).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Rule 19 (Form B) of the Document Writers' License Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 — future prospects and multiplier
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 — deductions for personal and living expenses; appropriate multiplier
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati and Others (2020) 9 SCC 644 — cap on love and affection/loss of consortium heads

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased’s income was substantially higher than the Tribunal’s notional assessment. Relying on Exhibit A14 (Register in Form B) and Exhibit A18, they contended the deceased earned about Rs. 80,000 per month, which should translate to an annual income of Rs. 9,60,000. They argued no tax was payable up to Rs. 2.5 lakhs, and after tax adjustments the notional monthly income should be ~Rs. 70,000. Applying 40% future prospects and a 16-multiplicand multiplier (as per Sarla Verma) and deducting 1/3 for personal living expenses, they calculated a higher dependency loss. They urged a consolidated head-wise enhancement including loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering, and sought to disallow implicit ‘love and affection’ where Somwati restricts such awards. They culminated in a total claim of Rs. 1,27,52,500 and urged the Tribunal’s award be revised accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (insurer and others) argued that the negligence by the bus driver was contested; however, the Tribunal ultimately found negligence in favor of the petitioners. The insurer admitted the accident and policy but opposed excessive quantum and contested the income evidence. They urged that the existing award should be maintained unless justified by the evidence, noting that the policy terms and benefit limits still applied. The respondents also relied on legal principles restricting awards under head of love and affection in light of Somwati and related precedents, and emphasized the need to adhere to established caps and heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Applied for future prospects and multiplier in calculating loss of dependency.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Used to determine future prospects multiplier and 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati and Others	(2020) 9 SCC 644	Positive	Applied to constrain further love and affection/loss of consortium awards when such head had already been compensated.

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 Liya, Varghese and Mary v Abdulrahiman, Raju K., Sathikumar N. and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**1**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946** **MACA NO. 3875 OF 2018** **OPMV NO.71 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-** **II, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS** - **1 LIYA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.LAZAR, RESIDING AT PADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURICHIRA POST, VALARKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2 VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT PLAKKAL HOUSE, PALAYAM VADAKENCHERRY AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **3 MARY, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PLAKKAL HOUSE, PALAYAM, VADAKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV BABY MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS** - **1 ABDULRAHIMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, NALPATHODY HOUSE, OLIPPARA, GANDHI NAGAR, KAIRADY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678510, (DRIVER OF TATA STAGE CARRIAGE BUS NO.KL-07-AJ 0861).** _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**2**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** **2 RAJU.K., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.KAMASHI POOSARI, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, SARASWATHY NIVAS, MATTUPALAYAM, KOLLAMKODE P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678506 (RC OWNER OF TATA STAGE CARRIAGE BUS NO.KL-07-AJ0861).** - **3 SATHIHKUMAR.N.,** **S/O.NAGELAN, AGE AND OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN, THARAVANATTUKALAM, ADALAKURRSI, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678701 (INSURED OF TATA STAGE CARRIAGE BUS NO.KL-07-AJ-0861).** **4 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING 87, M.G.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, PIN- 400001, (INSURER OF TATA STAGE CARRIAGE BUS NO.KL-07-AJ0861).** **BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.O.D.SIVADAS-R3 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN-SC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**3**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:17457** ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.71/2015 on the file of the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad 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 and parents of the deceased by name Pathrose, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.2.2014. According to them, on 25.2.2014, at about 5.15 p.m., while the deceased along with his wife were travelling in a Maruthi Zen car, a bus bearing registration No.KL-7AJ-861 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the Maruthi Zen car and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner and 3[rd] respondent is the insured and 4[th] respondent is the insurer of the offending _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**4**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** 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 Rs.75,00,000/-. 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 testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A18 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.38,55,344/- 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. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, Sri.O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**5**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** respondent and Sri. N.S. Mohammed Usman, learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] 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 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 Document Writer, earning Rs.80,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.2,50,000/- per year, for the sole reason that he had not paid any income tax. Therefore, his income was fixed below the taxable income limit during the year 2013-14. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Exhibit A14 Register in Form B Rule 19 maintained as per the Document Writers' License Rules, which was proved by PW1, the Sub Registrar concerned. In the impugned Award itself, the Tribunal, after verifying Exhibits A14 and A18, found that the deceased had an average earning of about Rs.80,000/- during the period of accident. On a perusal of Exhibit A14 and A18, it is found to be correct. In fact, his income as per the above documents is more than Rs.80,000/-. Since the petitioners claimed his monthly income at Rs.80,000/alone, I am inclined to accept his monthly income at Rs.80,000/-. _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**6**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** 12. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased during the period will come to Rs.9,60,000/- (80000x12). During the year 2013-14, there was no income tax for the income upto Rs.2.5 lakhs. For the income between Rs.2.5 Lakhs and 5 lakhs, the income tax payable was 10% and for the income between Rs.5 lakh and 10 lakhs, the income tax payable was 20%. Therefore, for the annual income of Rs.9,60,000/- the deceased ought to have paid an income tax of Rs.1,22,000/-. Therefore, the annual income of deceased less the income tax payable will come to Rs.8,38,000/- (9600001,22,000). Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased, less the income tax payable, will come to Rs.69,833/- which is rounded to Rs.70,000/-. 13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 33 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 16, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Since the deceased was married who left behind 3 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in **Sarla Verma** (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**7**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:17457** dependency will come to Rs.1,25,44,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs40,000/- 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 (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 together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3). 15. 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. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has not _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**8**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** awarded any compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,27,52,500/-, 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|Damage to clothing& articles|2,000/-|2,000/-| |2|Loss of consortium|40,000/-|1,45,200/-| |3|Loss of dependency|37,33,344/-|1,25,44,000/-| |4|Funeral expenses|15,000/-|18,150/-| |5|Love and affection|50,000/-|Nil| |6|Loss of estate|15,000/-|18,150/-| |7|Pain and suffering|Nil|25,000/-| ||**Total**|**38,55,344/-**|**1,27,52,500/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.88,97,156/-||| 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 4[th] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,27,52,500/- (Rupees one _**MACA. No.3875/2018**_ _**9**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17457** crore twenty seven lakh fifty two thousand and five hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 160 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). 20. 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 sou.