High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-10-13Appeal dismissed; impugned award upheld.

MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.DIAS
Judgment Date: 2021-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s award of Rs.12,53,500 with interest at 9% per annum and costs against respondents 1 and 2. Negligence findings were left intact; there was no reversal of the liability assignment or computation of damages. The insurer remained not properly impleaded as a party; the court found no justification to interfere with the impugned award, emphasizing the tribunals’ discretion in determining reasonable compensation and citing relevant precedents.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed; impugned award upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUHARA
AMINAKUTTY
AKHIL MUHAMMED
LIYA FATHIMA (MINOR)
LEENA MAHRIN (MINOR)

Respondents

SIVAKUMAR P.G.
SURESH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.A. Salil Narayanan

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Jayaram
• Sarath Chandran K.B.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under MACA 3354 of 2018 before the Kerala High Court challenging the award pronounced in OPMV 869/2016 (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam) on the death of Veerankutty, husband of the first petitioner and father to petitioners 3 to 5. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 46,08,500, arguing dependency and loss suffered due to the deceased’s death. The Tribunal, after hearing, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding Rs. 12,53,500 to the petitioners with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, against respondents 1 and 2, who were not contesting in part and were ex parte. The 3rd respondent – insurer – contested the cover validity and its liability, contending it was unnecessary to be a party. The High Court, on 13.10.2021, per Judge C.S. Dias, examined three grounds raised in the appeal: (i) whether the notional monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 7,000 was excessive; (ii) whether compensation under conventional heads should have been awarded or re-calibrated; and (iii) whether the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and the charge-sheet evidence warranted interference. The judge concluded that the Tribunal’s approach was sound, upheld the conventional heads, and found no basis to alter the findings of negligence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award sustained."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Order XLI and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

There cannot be a straight jacket formula based on arithmetic exactitude.
Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and exercise discretion in awarding reasonable and just compensation.
Conventional heads of compensation (funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium) are payable at fixed amounts as laid down by binding precedents (Sarala Verma, Pranay Sethi).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the deceased was notional income Rs. 7,000 per month fixed by the Tribunal understates the earnings; they relied on the deceased’s role as an agent in the Regional Transport Office and his business activity (V.K. Auto Consultants), arguing for higher income and full compensation under conventional heads. They seek maintenance of the Tribunal’s award, including funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, as per established precedents. They defend the award as just and proportionate to the dependency and actual loss suffered.

Contentions of Respondents

The appellants challenge the Tribunal’s award on three counts: (i) the notional monthly income of Rs. 7,000 is excessive; (ii) compensation under conventional heads should not have been awarded or should be recalibrated; (iii) the petition should have been dismissed due to lack of contest and contradicting evidence. They urge reduction or dismissal, relying on the need to align with precedents that limit liability and fix notional income conservatively.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited to support notional income principles and the benchmarking of monthly earnings in MACT cases.
Sarala Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation	(2010) 2 KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Cited for conventional heads of compensation (funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium) and their standard amounts.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for yardsticks in awarding conventional heads of compensation and overall framework for notional income considerations.

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 MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 869/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:** 1 SIVAKUMAR P.G., AGED 40 YEARS S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY, (5/711), PARAPPURATH HOUSE, NELLIKKATTIRI P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2 SURESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, AMBALAKKUNNIL HOUSE, NELLIKKATTIRI P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.JAYARAM SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B. ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:** 1 SUHARA, AGED 36 YEARS W/O.LATE VEERANKUTTY, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, 116C, ULLANNUR, V.K.KADAV, P.O.THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 534. 2 AMINAKUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, MOTHER OF LATE VEERANKUTTY, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, 116C, ULLANNUR, V.K.KADAVU, P.O.THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679534. 3 AKHIL MUHAMMED, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O LATE.VEERANKUTTY, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, 116C, ULLANNUR, V.K.KADAVU, P.O.THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679534. **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **2** 4 LIYA FATHIMA, AGED 15 YEARS, D/O.LATE VEERANKUTTY, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, 116C, ULLANNUR, V.K.KADAVU, P.O.THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679534.(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SUHARA 1ST RESPONDENT.) 5 LEENA MAHRIN, AGED 10 YEARS, D/O.LATE VEERANKUTTY, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, 116C, ULLANNUR, V.K.KADAVU, P.O.THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679534(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SUHARA 1ST RESPONDENT.) BY ADV SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants were the respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. (MV) No.869/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioners before the Tribunal. The appellants have not impleaded the 3[rd] respondent – insurer as a party in the appeal. Hence, the parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Veerankutty (deceased), the husband of the 1[st] petitioner, the son of the 2[nd] petitioner and the father of the petitioners 3 to 5. It was their case that, on 28.10.2014 while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-52 B 4004 from Pattambi to Thrithala, when he reached the V.K.Kadavu road junction, another TVS Scooter bearing Reg. No.KL52C 6610 (offending scooter) ridden by the 2[nd] respondent **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **4** in a negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and lost his life on 8.11.2014. The offending scooter was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. The deceased was an Agent in the Regional Transport Office and running a concern by-name 'V.K.Auto Consultants. '. He was aged 45 years at the time of his death and was earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. The petitioners were dependents of the deceased. Hence, they claimed a total compensation of Rs.46,08,500/- from the respondents, which was limited to Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte. 4. The 3[rd] respondent – Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the fact that the offending scooter had a valid insurance coverage. Therefore, it was an unnecessary party in the proceeding. 5. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **5** A8 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to realise an amount of Rs.12,53,500/- from the respondents 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the respondents 1 and 2 are in appeal. 8 Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ respondents 1 and 2. 9. The principal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are: (i) the notional monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.7,000/- is excessive; (ii) the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation under the conventional heads; and (iii) the claim petition ought to have been dismissed. **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **6** ## **Ground No.(i)** 10. The definite case of the petitioners was that the deceased was working as an Agent in the Regional Transport Office and was running a concern by-name 'V.K.Auto Consultants'. The deceased was aged 45 years and was earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. Nevertheless, for the want of material, the Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-. 11. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month. 12. Following the yardstick in the aforecited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2014, I find that the monthly notional income of the deceased fixed at Rs.7,000/- is quite reasonable, if not on the lower side. Hence,I answer Ground No.(i) against the appellants. ## **Ground No.(ii)** **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **7** 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sarala Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation** [2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)] and **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has categorically held that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads namely, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.15, 000/- , Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. 14. It was taking into account the aforecited yardsticks that the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the conventional heads. I do not find any error in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I uphold the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. ## **Question No.(iii)** 15. As I have already found that the petitioners have proved beyond any semblence of doubt, particularly Ext.A3 charge-sheet, that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent. The offending scooter was owned by the 1[st] respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **8** have not filed a written statement or let in any evidence to discredit the charge-sheet, I do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the Tribunal in allowing the claim petition. Hence, I answer Ground No.(iii) also against the appellants. 16. On a comprehensive appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not find any error in the compensation awarded by the Tribubnal. 17. It is to be born-in-mind that the accident occurred on 28.10.2014. It is more than seven years that the respondents have been knocking at the doors of the courts , seeking compensation on account of the death of their bread-winner. It is trite, that the Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion in awarding reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straight jacket formula based on arthimetical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has, after a thread-bare analysis of the facts and the law, has **MACA NO. 3354 OF 2018** **9** judicially exercised its powers based on the provisions of the Act and the authoritative precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while arriving at the conclusions in the impugned award. I do not find any justifiable grounds in the memorandum of appeal warranting the admission of the appeal at this stage, which would only be a wastage of judicial time and harassment to the respondents. In the result, in exercise of the powers under Order XLI and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold. ma/13/10/2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**