MACA No. 2831 of 2014 & MACA No. 223 of 2015 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Madhusoodhanan Pillai and Others)

``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 2831 OF 2014`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2014 IN OPMV NO.890 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA/ I ADDL. M.A.C.T. /M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE ORIENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANDY LIMITED PUNALUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-682018. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI R S/O.KUNJURAMAN NAIR, KALIYILAVILA, THEKKETHIL, IVARAKALA NADUVIL, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O., KADAMPANADU, PIN 689320.`** - **`2 ATHUL M. S/O.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI.R, KALIYILAVILA, THEKKETHIL, IVARAKALA NADUVIL, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O., KADAMPANADU, PIN 689320.`** - **`3 AKASHI M MINOR S/O.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI.R, KALIYILAVILA, THEKKETHIL, IVARAKALA NADUVIL, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O., KADAMPANADU, PIN 689320, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND 1ST RESPONDENT.`** ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.223/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 223 OF 2015`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.890 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, PATHANAMTHITTA / IV ADDL. M.A.C.T. ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 MADHUSOODHANAN S/O KUNJURAMANM NAIR, KALIYILAVILA THEKKETHIL, IVARKALA NADUVIL, PUTHANAMBALAM PO, KADAMBANADU`** - **`2 ATHULSO MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, KALIYILAVILA THEKKETHIL, IVARKALA NADUVIL, PUTHANAMBALAM PO, KADAMBANADU.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:`** - **`1 SARAMMA SUNNY SUNNY COTTAGE, KADAMBANAD PO, ADOOR 691552`** - **`2 THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, PB NO17, POST OFFICE JUNCTION, PUNALUR 691 305`** ``` BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2831/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.890/ 2011 on the file of the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Pathanamthitta, are the appellants in MACA No.223/2015 and the 3[rd] respondent therein is the appellant in MACA No.2831/2014. (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 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the husband and children of the deceased by name Lathakumari, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.06.2011. According to them, on 12.06.2011, at about 8.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL-23-B-7949, a car bearing reg.no.KL-26-A-4667 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the injuries, on 13.06.2011 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` ``` 5 ``` offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.32,91,000/-. 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 A20. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 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.1237347/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners and the 3[rd] respondent preferred these appeals. 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.A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` 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 Beautician cum Tailor, earning Rs.18000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.6000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. In order to prove the deceased was a Beautician cum Tailor, the learned counsel has relied upon Exts.A12 to A15 documents. Ext.A12 is the certificate issued by Nice Herbal Beauty Sasthamkotta, Kollam, to the effect that the petitioner has successfully completed the Beautician course from the said institution. Ext.A13 is the identity card issued by the Kerala Beautician Association in favour of the deceased. Ext.A14 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer, Kunnathur Village Office stating that she was working as Beautician. Ext.A15 is the certificate issued by the District Tailoring Welfare Board, which shows that she was a tailor also. The petitioners examined the 1[st] petitioner as PW1 to prove the above documents **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` ``` 7 ``` and also to prove the income of the deceased. In the light of the documents Exts.A12 to A15 and the oral testimony of PW1, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent argue that though it is revealed that the deceased was a tailor cum beautician, there is no reliable evidence to prove the income. 12. It is true that in addition to the oral testimony of PW1, there is no evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased. However, from the documents Exts.A12 to A15, it is revealed that the deceased was a beautician cum tailor during the relevant period. She has passed the beautician course in the year 2004. That means, at the time of the accident she had 7 years experience in the field as beautician. Ext.A19 is the certificate issued from the Director, Sreenarayana Guru Institute of Science and Technology, North Paravur, showing that the 2[nd] petitioner was a fourth semester B.Tech Engineering student in the above college during 2012-2016 batch. Ext.A20 is the certificate issued from KRKPM BHS & VHSS Kadampanad, stating that the 3[rd] petitioner was a student in Class X of that school. 13. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` 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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was a Beautician cum Tailor by profession, her notional income is fixed at Rs.12,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. 14. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 42 years. Therefore, 25% 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 14, 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 dependency will come to Rs.16,80,000/-. 15. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent is that the Tribunal has added 30% of the income towards future prospects and towards love and affection a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses. 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.100000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.200000/- 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.145200/- (48,400 x 3). 17. 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. 18. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the ``` 10 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case 1 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.25000/-. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.19,10,247/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |Sl.<br>No<br>.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by<br>Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded<br>in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|873600|16,80,000| |2|Pain and suffering|10000|25000| |3|Funeral expenses|25000|18150| |4|Transport to hospital|10350|10350| |5|Damage to cloth and<br>articles|1000|1000| |6|Medical & Treatment<br>expenses|12397|12397| ``` MACA NO.2831 OF 2014 & MACA NO.223 OF 2015 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24419 ``` ``` 11 ``` |7|Loss of love and<br>affection|200000|--------| |---|---|---|---| |8|Loss of consortium|100000|145200| |9|Loss of estate|5000|18150| ||**Total**|**1237347**|**1910247**| ||Enhanced Rs.|**672900**|| 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.19,10,247/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Seven 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 162 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%). 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** Pvv