```
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
```
## `PRESENT`
```
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945
```
```
MACA NO. 1325 OF 2016
```
```
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.12.2015 IN OP (MV) NO.633 OF 2008 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
```
## `APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:`
```
SHYJU K.M.,
AGED 38, S/O. MOHANAN,KALAPURAPARAMBU HOUSE,
10/424,MANAKAPADY, KARUMALOOR P.O.,N. PARAVUR.
```
```
BY ADV SRI.V.A.VINOD
```
## `RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/1ST RESPONDENT:`
```
1SOPHY,
AGED 41, W/O. ANTONY (LATE), PADAMATTUMEAL HOUSE,NEENDUR,
VADAKKEKARA P.O., N. PARAVUR,(IST PETITIONER IN THE O.P(MV))
683522
2LIBIL,
AGED 13, D/O. LATE ANTONY,(MINOR), PADAMATTUMEAL
HOUSE,NEENDUR, VADAKKEKARA P.O.,N.PARAVUR
(2ND PETITIONER IN O.P (MV)683522
3SHAMEER,
AGED 21, S/O. KUNJIPILLAI,VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE,
THIRUVAIRANIKULAM P.O.NEAR THIRUVAIRANIKULAM
TEMPLE,VELLARAPPILLY, CHOWARA, ALUVA
(IST RESPONDENT IN THE O.P(MV)683580
R1 AND R2 BY ADVS.SRI.SABU PULLAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.03.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.2176/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
2
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
```
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
```
```
PRESENT
```
```
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MACA NO. 2176 OF 2022
```
```
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.12.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.633 OF 2008 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
```
## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`
```
1SOPHY, W/O ANTONY (LATE,
AGED 55 YEARS,
PADAMATTUMEAL HOUSE, NEENDUR, VADAKKEKARA P.O,
N PARAVUR, PIN - 683522
2LIBIL, D/O ANTONY (LATE)
AGED 21 YEARS,
PADAMATTUMEAL HOUSE, NEENDUR, VADAKKEKARA P O,
N PARAVUR, PIN – 683522 (OFFICIAL NAME OF THE 2ND
APPELLANT IS NITHUL ANTONY AND HER NICKNAME IS LIBIL
AND HE IS SON OF ANTONY WRONGLY SHOWN AS DAUGHTER OF
ANTONY IN THE AWARD)
BY ADVS.SRI.DILEEP VARGHESE
SMT.TESMY VARGHEESE
SRI.SABU PULLAN
```
## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`
```
1SHAMEER,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O KUNJIPPILLAI,
VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE, THIRUVAIRANIKULAM P.O,
NEAR THIRUVAIRANIKULAM TEMPLE, VELLARAPPILLY,
CHOVVARA, ALUVA, PIN - 683580
2SHAIJU K M, S/O MOHANAN,
KALAPURAPARAMBU HOUSE, 10/424, MANAKAPADY,
KARUMALOOR P.O, NORTH PARAVUR., PIN - 683511
BY ADVS.SRI.AJAY N S.
SRI.M.B.SOORI
SRI.VARGHESEKUTTY K.P.
```
```
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.03.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1325/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
3
```
```
M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022
```
## **JUDGMENT**
Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2024
Both these appeals have been originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur ( for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 10.12.2015 in OP (MV) No.633/2008.
2. The appellant in MACA No.1325/2016 is none other than the 2[nd] respondent before the Tribunal who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The appellants in MACA No.2176/2022 is none other than the petitioners before the Tribunal who raised a claim for compensation for the loss sustained to them due to the death of one Mr.Antony in a motor accident occurred at 11:00 p.m on 03.02.2007 near K.R.Bakes situated in Aluva-Paravur public road.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.
4. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants in MACA No.2176/2022 was that the monthly
```
4
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
income was fixed by the Tribunal on the lower side. According to the learned counsel, Mr.Antony was a mason by occupation at the relevant time of his death. The learned counsel seeks for modification of the monthly income proportionate to the monthly income fixed by the Apex Court for a coolie worker in 2004, in **Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236].** The learned counsel has also contended that the Tribunal failed to award reasonable compensation under the head loss of estate. According to him `10,000/- alone was awarded, though the petitioners are entitled to get `15,000/-. The learned counsel canvassed for reassessment of compensation for loss of dependency based on the monthly income modified by this Court.
**`5.`** According to the learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No.1325/2016, the Tribunal has awarded excess sum as compensation towards funeral expenses. According to him petitioners are entitled to get only `15,000/- as compensation under that head but the Tribunal has awarded `10,000/- in
```
5
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
excess than that was payable. The learned counsel has contended further that `4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as the monthly income being reasonable is only to be maintained. It is pointed out that the Tribunal is unjustified in awarding compensation under the heads pain and sufferings and loss of love and affection. Accordingly he seeks to discard the compensation stood awarded under those heads.
6. In the light of the rival arguments advanced, this Court has ventured to analyse the factual matrix of the case as well as the evidence stood adduced by the parties before the Tribunal. The motor accident in question was occurred at about 11:00 p.m. on 03.02.2007 near K.R.Bakes situated in Aluva-Paravur public road. Mr.Antony was walking through the said road from East to West and when reached near K.R.Bakes, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-07-AZ-7226 knocked him down due to rash and negligent riding by it’s rider. He sustained serious injuries and was rushed to Amrita Hospital, Edappally for treatment. After undergoing preliminary treatment there, he had also availed treatment from three
```
6
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
more hospitals. He succumbed to the injuries on 18.03.2007. He was survived by his wife and a daughter. He was a mason by occupation and claimed as earning `4,000/- monthly. Seeking for a sum of `4,00,000/- as compensation the Original Petition was filed arraying the rider, and the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-07-AZ-7226 as respondents 1 and 2. It was alleged that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
7. Notice was served on all respondents from the Tribunal. 1[st] respondent entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments in the Original Petition. It was contended that Original Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the motor accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, that the 1[st] respondent was riding the motorcycle carefully and cautiously and observing traffic rules, that the amount claimed as compensation in the Original Petition is excessive, that the death of the victim of the motor accident was alleged as occurred for want of proper treatment.
```
7
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
8. 2[nd] respondent filed written statement raising contentions that the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are not admitted, that 1[st] respondent was not negligent and that the motor accident was occurred due to careless crossing of the road by the petitioner. Compensation claimed is also disputed for it’s exorbitance.
9. Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 and A2 were marked by the petitioners in evidence. On the basis of the evidence the Tribunal found that the motor accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-07-AZ-7226 by the 1[st] respondent. Compensation payable was calculated by the Tribunal and arrived at a sum of `6,58,000/-. The Tribunal directed the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to pay the compensation arrived at in favour of the petitioners alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation and `9,000/- as proportionate costs.
```
8
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
10. Challenge is raised by the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent against the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal as payable. Petitioners are entitled to get `80,000/- in total (`40,000/- x 2) as compensation towards loss of consortium. But, the Tribunal has awarded `1,00,000/under that head, which is `20,000/- in excess than the compensation payable. The Tribunal has awarded `25,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses whereas the petitioners are entitled only to get `15,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded `10,000/- towards loss of estate which is `5,000/less than `15,000/- payable. Petitioners are not entitled to get `20,000/- and `50,000/- respectively stood awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and pain and sufferings.
11. The monthly income was fixed by the Tribunal as `4,000/- and compensation was calculated on it’s basis. As already stated, Mr.Antony was a mason at the relevant time when he met with the motor accident. Therefore, the monthly income can be refixed as `6000/-, being a sum proportionate
```
9
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
to the monthly income fixed in the case of coolie worker, in
**Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , Though the age of the deceased at the relevant time of his death was contended as 67 years, the same was not established. Therefore, the argument advanced in that regard is discarded. The deceased being aged 42 years at the relevant time of the motor accident, 14 adopted by the Tribunal as the multiplier being correct is maintained. Deceased was survived by two members who are wife and minor daughter. Therefore, 1/3[rd] is liable to be deducted towards personal expenditure, the deceased would have spent had he been alive. The death of the victim in the motor accident being an untimely one, 25% is also added to the monthly income fixed, in consideration of loss of future prospects.
12. When 25% is added to `6,000/-, the re-fixed monthly income, `7,500/- is arrived at. When compensation for loss of dependency is calculated afresh on the basis of the factors mentioned hereinabove, `8,40,000/- (`7,500/-x 12 x
```
10
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
14 x 2/3) is arrived at. `4,48,000/-, stood awarded by the Tribunal as compensation under the above head when adjusted against, the petitioners will get `3,92,000/- (`8,40,000/- - `4,48,000/-) as additional compensation.
13. Compensation was omitted to be awarded by the Tribunal under the head damages to clothing and this Court is inclined to award `1,000/-. The compensation stood awarded under the head transportation expenses is maintained.
14. When calculated in the above manner, it is found that `1,00,000/- was paid by the Tribunal in excess under various heads than the amount petitioners are entitled to receive. `3,98,000/- (`3,92,000/- + `5,000/- + `1,000/-) is arrived at as the additional compensation payable. `1,00,000/(`20,000/- + `50,000/- + `10,000/- + `20,000/-) when deducted therefrom the petitioners will get `2,98,000/(Rupees Two lakhs ninety eight thousand only) as additional compensation, which amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% as fixed by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. Respondents 1 and
```
11
```
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1325 of 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.2176 of 2022`**
2 are made jointly and severally liable to pay the additional compensation now arrived at equally among the petitioners. They shall see that the additional compensation now arrived at is deposited in favour of petitioners within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this common judgment is received. The 2[nd] petitioner, being minor, the share due to her shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank till her attainment of age of majority. The directions issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated
06.09.2019 shall also be complied with while disbursing the amount .
The appeals are allowed in part accordingly.
Sd/-
**MARY JOSEPH**
**JUDGE**
MJL
