MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016

``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 1 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22595 ``` **==> picture [57 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. 2578 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.03.2016 IN OPMV NO.1336 OF 2010 OF ``` ``` MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI ``` ## **`APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT :-`** ``` NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MANJERI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 35. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :-`** - **`*1 NASEEMA, W/O.LATE MUHAMMED KASIM P.V. (DIED) PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, RAYIRIMANGALAM AIMSOM & DESOM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 302.`** - **`2 NAFEESA MOL P.V (MINOR), D/O.LATE MUHAMMED KASIM P.V. PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, RAYIRIMANGALAM AIMSOM & DESOM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 302. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT`** - **`3 SAINABA, W/O.MOHAMMEDALI, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, RAYIRIMANGLAM AMSOM & DESOM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 302.`** - **`4 SADIQUE, S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, RAYIRIMANGLAM AMSOM & DESOM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 302.`** ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` - **`5 ASMBAI, D/O.MOHAMMEDALI, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, RAYIRIMANGLAM AMSOM & DESOM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 302.`** - **`*ADDDL.6 AYSHA MOL, AGED 49, D/O IMBACHI, KODAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, OLAPEEDIKA, PARIYAPURAM P.O., TANUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 302.`** - **`*(ADDL. RESPONDENT NO. 6 IS IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 18/10/2022 IN IA 2/2022 IN MACA 2578/2016.`** ## **`BY ADV MOHAMED JAMEEL P K`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` ## **JUDGMENT** The 2[nd] respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.1336/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri 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, mother, minor child and siblings of the deceased by name Muhammed Kasim P.V who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.05.2010. According to them, on 29.05.2010, at about 12.00 hours, while the deceased was riding his motorcycle, he was hit down by a car owned and driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries, on 30.05.2010. 3. The 2[nd] 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.6,73,000/- limited to Rs.6,50,000/-. 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 ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A5. 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.14,90,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 2[nd] respondent 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.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/insurance company, and Sri.P.K.Mohammed Jameel, the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents. 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 2[nd] respondent is that towards future prospects the tribunal has added 50% of the income. Further according to him, towards love affection Rs.2,75,000/- and towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, Rs.1,00,000/each was awarded. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` would argue that the notional income of the deceased fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a coolie getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- and the tribunal also fixed the notional income at Rs.4,000/-. 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 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/-. 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 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-, 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.7,500/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 25 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 ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` 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 dependency will come to Rs.15,12,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,75,000/- 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). 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 ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` 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 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. The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest which is challenged by the 2[nd] respondent in the appeal. Considering the facts, I hold that interest at the rate 8% is a reasonable one. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/respondents are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.17,21,500/-, 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|Transport to hospital|2500|2500| |2|Funeral expenses|25000|18150| |3|Damage to clothing and<br>articles|500|500| |4|Pain and sufferings|15000|25,000| |5|Love and affection|2,75,000|Nil| ``` MACA NO. 2578 OF 2016 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:22595` |6|Loss of consortium|1,00,000|1,45,200| |---|---|---|---| |7|Loss of dependency|9,72,000|15,12,000| |8|Loss of estate|1,00,000|18150| ||**Total**|**14,90,000**|**17,21,500**| ||**Enhanced to Rs.**|**2,31,500**|| 19. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of and the 2[nd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.17,21,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Twenty One Thousand Five 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. 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** SMA