M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns.

M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 1 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 141 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1045/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1045/2010:_ - _1 LAIJU MARIAM RAJU, D/O. KURIAN PUNOOSE RAJU, AGED 28 YEARS,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE._ - _2 RAIJU ANNA CHACKO, D/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU,AGED 26 YEARS, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE._ - _3 LEBIN K. CHACKO S/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU, AGED 19 YEARS,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE. BEING MINOR IS REP. BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN._ _BY ADVS. SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.M.ASHOK KINI_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1045/2010:_ - _1 GOPINATHA PILLAI S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KOCHUTHUNDIL THEKKETHIL, IVERKALA, NORTH PUTHENAMBALAM P.O, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 691 533, KOLLAM DISTRICT_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 2 _2 SIVAN PILLAI S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, SREEVIHAR, PUTHENAMBALAM P.O, VARKALA WEST, NORTH KUNNATHOOR, PIN -691 533,KOLLAM DIST._ _3 THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GLOBAL PLAZA POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR-680004._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB - SR.COUNSEL_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.142/2018, 145/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 3 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 142 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1044/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1044/2010:_ _1 LAIJU MARIAM RAJU D/O. KURIAN PUNOOSE RAJU, AGED 28 YEARS,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE._ _2 RAIJU ANNA CHACKO D/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU,AGED 26 YEARS, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE._ _3 LEBIN K. CHACKO S/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU, AGED 17 YEARS,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE. BEING MINOR IS REP. BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN._ _BY ADVS. SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.M.ASHOK KINI_ _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1044/2010:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 4 _1 GOPINATHA PILLAI S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KOCHUTHUNDIL THEKKETHIL, IVERKALA, NORTH PUTHENAMBALAM P.O, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 691 533, KOLLAM DISTRICT._ _2 SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SREEVIHAR, PUTHENAMBALAM P.O, VARKALA WEST, NORTH KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DIST.,PIN -691 533_ _3 THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GLOBAL PLAZA POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR-680004._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.141/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 5 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 145 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1046/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1046/2010:_ - _1 NIRMALA PHILIP, W/O.P.C.PHILIP, AGED 60 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD._ - _2 SINI REJI, D/O.P.C.PHILIP, AGED 37 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD._ - _3 NISHA BINU, D/O.P.C.PHILIP, AGED 34 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD._ - _4 SHANTY PHILIP, S/O.P.C.PHILIP, AGED 32 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD._ _BY ADVS. SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.M.ASHOK KINI_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1046/2010:_ _1 GOPINATHAn PILLAI S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KOCHUTHUNDIL THEKKETHIL, IVERKALA, NORTH PUTHENAMBALAM P.O.,_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 6 _KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE-691 533, KOLLAM DISTRICT._ _2 SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SREEVIHAR,PUTHENAMBALAM P.O.,VARKALA WEST, NORTH KUNNATHOOR, PIN 691 533,KOLLAM DISTRICT._ _3 THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GLOBAL PLAZA POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680 004._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.141/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 7 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 164 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1246/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1246/2010:_ _LEBIN K. CHACKO S/O KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU,AGED 20 YEARS,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE,VEEYAPURAM MURI,VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE._ _BY ADVS. SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.M.ASHOK KINI_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1246/2010:_ _1 GOPINATHAN PILLAI S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KOCHUTHUNDIL THEKKETHIL, IVERKALA, NORTH PUTHENAMBALAM P.O., KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN – 690 540._ _2 SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SREEVIHAR,PUTHENAMBALAM P.O.,VARKALA WEST, NORTH KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN 690 540._ - _3 THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GLOBAL PLAZA_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 8 _POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680 004._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW -R3 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.141/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 9 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1451 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1044/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:_ _RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-682020._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR._ ## _RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:_ _1 LAIJU MARIAM RAJU D/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM P.O., PIN-690 514. 2 RAIJU ANNA CHACKO D/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM P.O., PIN-690 514. 3 LEBIN K. CHACKO NOW AGED 19, S/O. KURIAN PUNNOOSE RAJU,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM P.O., PIN-690 514._ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 10 _BY ADV._ _ADV.R.RANJINI - R1-R3_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.141/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 11 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1615 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1046/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:_ _RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-682020._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4:_ _1 NIRMALA PHILIP W/O.P.C.PHILIP, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD, PIN-690 556. 2 SINI REJI D/O.P.C.PHILIP, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD, PIN-690 556. 3 NISHA BINU D/O.P.C.PHILIP, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD,PIN-690556._ _4 SHANTY PHILIP D/O.P.C.PHILIP, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, HARIPAD, PIN-690 556._ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 12 _BY ADV.ADV.R.RANJINI - R1-R4_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.141/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 13 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,_ _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 2168 OF 2018_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2017 IN OP(MV) 1045/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA_ ## _APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:_ _RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI - 682 020._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3:_ _1 LAIJU MARIAM RAJU D/O. KURIAN PUNOOSE RAJU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE,VEEYAPURAM P.O, PIN - 690 514. 2 RAIJU ANNA CHACKO. D/O. KURIAN PUNOOSE RAJU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM P.O, PIN - 690 514. 3 LEBIN K. CHACKO NOW AGED 19, S/O. KURIAN PUNOOSE RAJU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE,VEEYAPURAM P.O, PIN - 690 514._ _BY ADV_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 14 ## _ADV. RANJINI R._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.141/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 15 ## **JUDGMENT** **[MACA Nos.141/2018, 142/2018, 145/2018, 164/2018, 1451/2018, 1615/2018, 2168/2018]** All these appeals arose from four claim petitions submitted by the victims in the very same motor accident. The accident occurred when a Maruti car in which the victims of the accident were travelling, was hit by a Tavera car bearing Registration No.KL 23A 2008. The Tavera car was being driven by the 1[st] respondent, owned by the 2[nd] respondent and was insured with the 3[rd] respondent in the claim petitions. In the accident, three persons, including the driver of the Maruti car died, and one passenger sustained injuries. Seeking compensation for the death, the legal heirs of the deceased persons have filed O.P.(M.V.) Nos.1044/2010, 1045/2010 and 1046/2010. Seeking compensation for the injuries sustained, O.P.(M.V.) No.1246/2010 was filed by one of the victims. 2. All the said claim petitions were tried together. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to in respect of their respective ranks in the claim petition. M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 16 3. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting coverage of policy for the said Tavera car, but disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence as well as the quantum of compensation was as also disputed by them. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A17 from the side of the claimants and the disability certificate of the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1246/2010 was marked as Ext.X1. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Tavera car and the entire liability was fixed accordingly. Being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. Challenging the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, respective claimants have filed M.A.C.A. Nos.142/2018 (O.P. M.V. No.1044/2010), M.A.C.A. No.145/2018 (O.P. M.V. No.1046/2010), M.A.C.A. No.141/2018 (O.P. M.V. No.1045/2010), M.A.C.A. No.164/2018 (O.P. M.V. No.1246/2010), M.A.C.A Nos.1451/2018, 1615/2018, and 2168/2018 were filed by the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company challenging the award passed in 17 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. O.P.(M.V.) Nos.1044/2010, Nos.1046/2010 and 1045/2008 respectively. 5. Heard Smt.R.Renjini, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in all the appeals Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in all these cases. 6. Since the Insurance Company filed the appeals challenging the finding of negligence, the said question is required to be decided as the first issue. As observed above, it was an accident occurred in respect of collision of two vehicles namely, a Maruti car bearing Registration No.KL 04 Q 9233 and a Tavera car insured with the 3[rd] respondent. It is to be noted that, in connection with the incident, the Police registered Ext.A1 F.I.R. against the 1[st] respondent, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. After the investigation, the Police filed Ext.A5 final report implicating the 1[st] respondent as the accused in the said case. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is that, going by the spot of the accident as is discernible from the scene mahazar, the Maruti car was on the wrong side and therefore, the negligence should not have been imposed upon the 18 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. driver of the Tavera car. However, the position of law in this regard is well settled as per the decision rendered by this Court in New **New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniyammal and others [2011 (3) KLT 648],** wherein it was held that in the absence of any contra evidence, the final report submitted by the Police can be accepted for determining the question of negligence in a crime under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case as evidenced by Ext.A5 the final report is against the 1[st] respondent, the driver of the Tavera car, and the respondents have not cared to adduce any contra evidence. Therefore, I do find any legally sustainable ground in interfering the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the Tavera car is solely responsible for the accident. 7. The next aspect relates the quantum of compensation which is challenged by the claimants as well as the Insurance Company. The respective claims are in the manner as follows: ## **M.A.C.A. No.141/2018 arising from O.P.(M.V.) No.1045/2010** 8. This claim petition was originally submitted by the children and the mother of the deceased in the accident. The deceased was aged 57 years, at the time of the accident. He was 19 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. working as a Welder in Abu Dhabi, with a monthly income of Rs.75,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation was only Rs.8,33,104/-. For the purpose of determining the compensation for loss of dependency, the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. The said monthly income is in serious dispute in this case. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants would point out that, the monthly income which he was receiving from his employment abroad was Rs.75,000/-. To substantiate the same Ext.A7 passport of the deceased and Ext.A8 salary certificate issued by the Managing Director, Steel Construction Engineering Company, Abu Dhabi was produced wherein, his monthly salary was shown as Dhs.2,000/-. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the said contention by pointing out that, no reliance can be placed on Ext.A8 salary certificate as the same was not properly attested and it was not proved as well. Moreover, the uncertainties attached to an employment abroad and the high expenses for living abroad are also to be taken into account while determining the monthly income. Of course, I find some force in the said contention, but M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 20 the monthly income of Rs.7,000/- accepted by the Tribunal, appears to be on lower side. It is discernible from Ext.A7 passport that, he has been working in Gulf country from 1999 onwards. The fact that, as on the date of accident he was maintaining a family consisting of five members is also cannot be ignored. It is also true that the claimants could not produce any better evidence in the form of bank statements and properly attested salary certificates, etc., to substantiate the claim of salary. However, it is to be noted in this regard that the claim petition was initially filed by the children of the deceased, along with his mother, who was aged 80 years at the time of the accident. After filing the claim petition, the mother passed away. The limitations, for the children, who were very young at the relevant time, in obtaining the documents relating to the employment and the income of the deceased is also a relevant factor, which cannot be lost sight of while adjudicating the claim of compensation. Therefore, some guesswork has to be certainly made, for ensuring “just compensation” to the victims in this case. While doing the said exercise, it is to be noted that as observed above evidently, the deceased was working abroad for more than M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 21 ten years. He claimed to be a person working as Welder. The monthly income, claimed in Ext.A8 salary certificate, is Dhs.2000/and as per the exchange rate prevailing at the time of the accident the said amount would come around Rs.25,000/-. Since the said document was not properly proved, the income as claimed in the said document as such cannot be accepted. But, considering the long period he was employed abroad and the other relevant aspects, I am of the view that, the monthly income can be fixed as Rs.20,000/- in this case. However, even while accepting the said monthly income, the fact relating to the uncertainties of the employment abroad and the high expenses the deceased may incur for maintaining himself abroad also have to be taken into account. Therefore, a deduction of 50% has to be made in such circumstances. As the deceased was aged 57 years the multiplier applicable is 9 and the addition to be made towards future prospects is 10%. Thus, while reassessing the compensation, with Rs.10,000/- as the monthly income, after the deduction of 50% for personal expenses, the amount as compensation under head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,88,000/- [(Rs.10,000 + 10%) x 12 x 9]. The amount already 22 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,52,104/- and thus the additional amount would come to Rs.5,35,896/-. 10. When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, as the death is instantaneous, the same is on higher side. Even though the said contention can be accepted, a notional amount needs to be granted. Thus, the said amount is fixed as Rs.10,000/-. Thereby an amount of Rs.15,000/- has to be deducted. The amounts awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of estate are Rs.25,000/- each. In the light of the principles laid down in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017)** **16 SCC 680]** the said amounts have to be revised as Rs.15,000/each and therefore, Rs.10,000/- each is deducted from the same. When coming to the amount awarded towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection and consortium. Since the deceased left behind four persons, all the claimants, being the children and the mother of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each and thus, a further 23 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded. Thus, the additional compensation receivable by the appellant would come to Rs. 5,60,896/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty thousand, eight hundred and ninety six only) [(5,35,896 + 60,000) – (15,000 + 10,000 + 10,000)]. ## **MACA No.142/2018 arising from O.P.(M.V.) No.1044/2010** 11. This claim petition was submitted by the children of the deceased in the accident. The deceased was claimed to be an agriculturist aged 45 years. The monthly income claimed was Rs.7,500/- . The Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.4,500/as the notional income and calculated the compensation with an addition of 30%. The total compensation awarded was Rs.8,36,200/-. The main dispute in this case relates to the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that, monthly income of Rs.4,500/- is grossly inadequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the said amount was on the lower side. Of course it is true that there is no evidence to prove the monthly income. However, when the method of computation 24 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. evolved from the principles laid in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], and **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company** [(2014) 2 SCC 735] is applied, the monthly income of an ordinary employee in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004, can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- even in the absence of any evidence. For determining the monthly income for the subsequent months the usual method adopted is to add Rs.500 per year. When such a method of computation is adopted, monthly income in this case can be reasonably fixed as Rs.7,500/as the accident has occurred in the year 2010. Thus, the said amount is accepted. As regards the future prospects, addition to be made is 25% as per **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] since the age of the deceased was 45 years. While reassessing the compensation with the above revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.10,50,000/- [ (7500 + 25%) x 12 x 14 x 2/3]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,52,104/- and thus the additional compensation receivable by the appellant would come to Rs.3,97,896/-. M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 25 12. When moving on to the other heads it can be seen that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel, since it is an instantaneous death, it was on higher side and the same is refixed as Rs.10,000/-, being notional amount. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- is found to be in excess. Similarly amounts awarded under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate were Rs.25,000/- each. Thus, it is excess by 10,000/- each as per the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** . Therefore, the amounts under the said heads are revised accordingly. As regards the loss of love and affection and consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. As per **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others 2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)** and **United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020 (3) KHC 760]** , the appellants being the children are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the said head; thus an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted as additional amount. Accordingly, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.3,82,896/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty two M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 26 thousand eight hundred and ninety six only) [(397896+20000)(15000+10000+10000)]. ## **MACA.145/18 arising from O.P.(M.V.) No.1046/2010** 13. This claim petition is submitted by the wife and children and mother of one Philip, who was the driver of the Maruti car and died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He was aged 57 years and was earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. However, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.4,500/-. Of course, in this case, there is no evidence to show the income. However, while adopting the method of computation in the light of the decisions rendered by the Honurable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd [2011 (13) SCC 236]** and **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[2014 (2) SCC** **735],** the monthly income in this case also can be fixed as Rs.7,500/- as the accident was in the year 2010. Since he was aged 57 an addition of 10% required to be made towards future prospectus. Thus, while reassessing the compensation the amount would come to Rs.6,68,250/[(7500+10%) x 12 x 9 x 3/4]. Amount already awarded under the 27 M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. head is Rs.4,19,148/-. Thus, the additional compensation would come to Rs.2,49,102/-. 14. In this case, also the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/towards pain and suffering. Since, this was also a case of instantaneous death, the amount of Rs.10,000/- can be fixed. Thus, Rs.15,000/-was found to be in excess. Similarly, Rs.25,000/each were awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, by the Tribunal. In the light of **Pranay Sethi (supra)** the said amounts are revised as Rs.15,000/- each. The Tribunal awarded, Rs 1,00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In this case, all the appellants, total 5 nos, are entitled for compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs 40,000/and thus the total amount would come to Rs 2,00,000/-. However, in **Satindar Kour** (supra), it was hled that, when compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, no further amount can be granted as compensation for loss of love and affection. Therefore, Rs 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection can be adjusted against Rs 2,00,000/- fixed by this court for compensation for loss of consortium. Therefore, no further enhancement is necessary in this head. Thus, the M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 28 additional compensation receivable by the appellants, in this case, is determined as Rs.2,14,102/- (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand one hundred and two only) [249102(15000+10000+10000)]. ## **M.A.C.Ano.164/18 arising from O.P.(M.V.) No.1246/2010** 15. This is a claim petition submitted by the person injured in the said accident. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,64,466/-, out of which Rs.2,35,966/- was towards medical expenses. It is discernible from Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board that he sustained physical disability of 2%. The Tribunal calculated the income at the rate of Rs.4,500/- and applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the compensation for 2% disability. However, the method of assessment of compensation for the injuries sustained by the minor was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Master Mallikarjun v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2013 KHC 4670].** As per the guidelines framed therein, in respect of the minors who sustained physical disability upto 10%, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- can be awarded along with actual expenses incurred by him. The said method of M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 29 computation can be adopted in this case, therefore, compensation fixed as Rs.1,00,000/-. As regards the actual expenses incurred by the claimant is considered, it is evident that, medical expenses would come to Rs.2,35,966/-. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.3,35,966/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty five thousand nine hundred and sixty six only) The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs 2,64,466/- and thus additional compensation would come to Rs 71,500/- (Rupees seventy one thousand and five hundred only). 15. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings these appeals are disposed of in the following manner: (i) The additional amount receivable by the appellants in MACA.No.141 of 2018 (OP(MV) No 1045/2010) is fixed as Rs. 5,60,896/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty thousand, eight hundred and ninety six only) (ii) The appellants in M.A.C.A.No. 142 of 2018(OP(MV) No.1044/2010) would get an amount of Rs.3,82,896/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty two thousand eight hundred and ninety six only) as additional compensation. (iii) The additional amount receivable by the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.145 of 2018 (OP(MV) No M.A.C.A.No.141/2018 & Conns. 30 1046/2010) is Rs.2,14,102/- (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand one hundred and two only) (iv) The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.164 of 2018 (OP(MV) 1246/2010) would get an additional amount of Rs 71,500/- (Rupees seventy one thousand and five hundred only). (v) All the aforesaid amounts will carry interest as ordered by the Tribunal along with proportionate cost. The challenge raised by the Insurance Company relating to the question of negligence is rejected. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **JUDGE** Scs/DG/12.12.23