MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017

``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 1 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22416 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.08.2016 IN OPMV NO.313 OF 2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-`** - **`1 MARIAMMA CHETTIVELLIYAKATHU HOUSE, PALLITHODU VADAKKUM MURI,KUTHIYATHODU.`** - **`2 ANTONY CHETTIVELLIYAKATHU HOUSE, PALLITHODU VADAKKUM MURI,KUTHIYATHODU.`** - **`3 PHILOMINA CHETTIVELLIYAKATHU HOUSE, PALLITHODU VADAKKUM MURI,KUTHIYATHODU.`** - **`4 DOLLY CHETTIVELLIYAKATHU HOUSE, PALLITHODU VADAKKUM MURI,KUTHIYATHODU.`** - **`5 MINIMOL CHETTIVELLIYAKATHU HOUSE, PALLITHODU VADAKKUM MURI,KUTHIYATHODU.`** - **`6 REETHA CHETTIVELLIYAKATHU HOUSE, PALLITHODU VADAKKUM MURI,KUTHIYATHODU.`** ``` BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN ``` ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22416` ## **`RESPONDENTS / RES PONDENTS :-`** - **`1 C.KUMAR 72, VADANATHAMPATTI, VEERASINGAMANI.P.O.,SANKARANKOIL, NELLAI, TAMIL NADU.`** - **`2 JALEEL BEST TRADING CO., EDAMUTTOM.P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM.`** ``` BY ADV S.JAYASREE ``` ``` SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1386/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22416` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.313/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara are the appellants 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 parents and siblings of the deceased by name Joseph, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.01.2008. According to them, 07.01.2008 at about 09.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-8AA-4166 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and as a result of the accident, he along with the rider fell down and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the very same day. 3. 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 Rs.9,00,000/-. 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. ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22416 ``` 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13. 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.6,87,000/- 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.George Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, 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 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 a wood carving works, earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-.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 ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22416` decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2008 will come to Rs.6,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2008 will come to Rs.6,500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.6,500/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 21 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 2 dependents, towards personal 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.9,82,800/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22416 ``` Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards love and affection. No amount was awarded towards 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 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.96,800/- (48,400 x 2). 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. 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of 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. ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22416 ``` 17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.11,46,900/-, 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|Funeral expenses, Medical<br>expenses & Ambulance charge|25000|18,150| |2|Transportation expenses &<br>others|5000|5000| |3|Damage to clothing, etc.|1000|1000| |4|Pain and sufferings|10000|25,000| |5|Loss of dependency|4,86,000|9,82,800| |6|Loss of love and affection|1,50,000|Nil| |7|Loss of estate|10,000|18150| |8|Loss of consortium|Nil|96,800| ||**Total**|**6,87,000**|**11,46,900**| ||**Enhanced to Rs.**|**459900**|| 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.11,46,900/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the ``` MACA NO. 1391 OF 2017 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22416 ``` petition till realisation/deposit,, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). 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** SMA