MACA No. 378 of 2018

``` 2025:KER:26919 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2017 IN OPMV NO.1025 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1 K.MOHANAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O. KUNCHU, OTTAICKAL KALAM, PERUVEMBU (P.O), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` 2 DEEPA MOHANAN AGED 45 YEARS W/O. K.MOHANAN, OTTAICKAL KALAM, PERUVEMBU (P.O), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` 3 BHAVATH MOHANAN AGED 20 YEARS S/O. K.MOHANAN, OTTAICKAL KALAM, PERUVEMBU (P.O), PALAKKAD DISTRICT ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD B.O.IV, 1940-B, TRICHY ROAD, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE - 641 045. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26919 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1025 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of Bharath Mohan, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 20.07.2012. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:- On 20.07.2012, while the deceased Bharath Mohan was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-09-AC-9207 with his friend on the pillion and when reached in front of United Breweries at Kanjikkode, a lorry bearing registration No. TN-37-339 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle ridden by Bharath Mohan. Due to the impact of the hit, Bharath Mohan was thrown to the road sustaining severe injuries on him. Immediately after the incident, though the injured was rushed to the hospital, on the way to hospital he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The owner and driver of the lorry were arrayed as 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said lorry was arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26919` disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3[rd] respondent admitted the insurance coverage for the lorry involved in the accident. 4. During trial, from the side of the Petitioners, Exts. A1 to A10 were marked and from the side of the respondent, the copy of the insurance policy certificate was produced and marked as Ext.B1. 5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. TN-37-339 by the 2[nd] respondent and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified as Rs. 6,39,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioners have come up with this appeal. 6. I heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for appellants, Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the impugned award as well as the available materials. 7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26919` the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the loss suffered by the bereaved family of the deceased. According to the counsel, the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased reasonably and awarded only a meager amount under the head of loss of dependency. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is reasonable, just, fair, and, adequate and warrants no interference. 8. From a perusal of the award, it is evident that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-. In the petition, it is averred that the deceased was a student at the time of the accident and he was pursuing BBA Course. However, no documents, whatsoever, were produced from the side of the petitioners to substantiate the contention that the deceased was pursuing BBA course at the time of the accident. Nonetheless, admittedly the accident occurred in the year 2012. ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26919` Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]**_ **,** the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/-. As the deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 40% has to be made to the actual income towards the future prospects. After making such an addition, the income of the deceased will come to Rs. 11,900/- (Rs.8,500/- + Rs. 3,400/-). As the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident, 1/2 of the said income has to be deduced towards his personal expenses. Resultantly, the income of the deceased can reasonably be fixed at Rs. 5,950/- (Rs. 11,900/- – Rs. 5,950/-). As the deceased was aged 19 at the time of the accident, in view of the decision in **Sarla** **Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802** **(SC)]** , the multiplier to be reckoned is 18. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 12,85,200/- [Rs. 5,950/- x 12 x 18] as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Already an amount of Rs. 4,86,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 7,99,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand Two Hundred only) as ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26919` additional compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 9. A perusal of the award reveals that the tribunal omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of estate. I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand only) is to be awarded under the head of loss of estate. 10. Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are none other than the parents of the deceased. Considering their close relationship and bondage with the deceased, I am of the view that both of them are entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium. However, the tribunal omitted to award any amount under the said head as well. I am of the view that both of them are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 48,000/each as compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 96,000/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand Only) under the head of loss of consortium. As a reasonable amount is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, the 1[st] and 2[nd] petitioners are not entitled to get any amount under the head of loss of love and affection. Nevertheless, the 3[rd] petitioner is the younger brother of the deceased. As no amount is awarded in favour of him under the head of loss of consortium, ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:26919` he is certainly entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. Already an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal under the said head in favour of all the petitioners. I am of the view that the compensation under the said head has to be limited in favour of the 3[rd] petitioner only particularly when a reasonable amount has been awarded as compensation under the head of loss of consortium in favour of the 1[st] and 2[nd] petitioners. I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is to be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. Thereby an amount of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) has to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection. 11. Similarly, under the head of funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal. In view of the decision in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662]** _,_ the petitioners are entitled only to get an amount of Rs.18,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Resultant, an amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) has to be deducted from the amount already awarded under the said head. ``` MACA NO. 378 OF 2018 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26919 ``` 12. Therefore, an amount of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Seven Thousand only) (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.7,000/-) is to be deducted and Rs. 9,13,200/- (Rupees Nine lakh Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Only) (Rs.7,99,200/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.96,000/-) is to be added to the total compensation awarded by the tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 8,56,200/- (Rupees Eight lakh Fifty-Six Thousand Two Hundred only) (Rs.9,13,200/- – Rs.57,000/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE** ANS