MACA NO. 3412 OF 2014

``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2013 IN OPMV NO.656 OF 2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THALASSERY ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 P. GOURI W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, VADAKKINIPURAYIL HOUSE, CHUDALA, POYIL POST, (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED).`** ``` 2KUNHIRAMAN VADAKKINIPURAYIL HOUSE, CHUDALA, POYIL POST (FATHER OF THE DECEASED). ``` ``` BY ADVS. TOM PIOUS PIOUS THOMAS(K/719/E-1994) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 RAJESH.C.K. S/O.MUKUNDAN, KANNADIPARAMBA, AMSAM, PARAPPURAM, PIN 674336.`** - **`2 C.K.SUNIL S/O.MALATHI, ANITHA BHAVAN, CHELERI P.O., KANNUR, PIN 674237.`** - **`3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR, PIN 674237.`** ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SMT.K.S.SANTHI`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.656/ 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, 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 of the deceased by name Renjith, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.04.2008. According to them, on 15.04.2008, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a private bus bearing reg.no.KL-13Q/5589 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of which he fell down and 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 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.7,00,000/-. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 A7. 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.5,82,500/- 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.Tom Pious, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Smt. K. Santhi, 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 ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 carpenter, earning Rs.8000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4500/-.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 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.6500/-. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a carpenter by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.8000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 24 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 ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` to Rs.12,09,600/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.20000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection. No amount was awarded on the head ‘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 (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.96800/(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. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` reasonable. 16. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.13,94,700/-, 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|Dependency<br>compensation|4,45,500|12,09,600| |2|Pain and suffering|50000|50000| |3|Loss of love and<br>affection|40000|-------------| |4|Loss of estate|25000|18150| |5|Funeral expenses|20000|18150| |6|Transportation/<br>Ambulance|2000|2000| |7|Loss of consortium|Nil|96800| ||**Total**|**582500**|**1394700**| ||Enhanced|**812200**|| 17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.13,94,700/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date ``` MACA NO.3412 OF 2014 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26442 ``` of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 349 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 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