National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jaya and Others (MACA No. 995 of 2014)

``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] 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. 995 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2014 IN OPMV NO.902 OF 2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR ``` ## **`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,MAIN ROAD,NORTH PARAVUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G ROAD,ERNAKULAM ``` ``` BY ADV SEBASTIAN VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:`** ``` 1JAYA AGED 37 YEARS W/O.SUDHEESH,PARABUMMALAPARAMBU HOUSE,NEENDOOR KARA,VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE 683522 ``` ## **`2 ARUN`** ``` AGED 15 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.SUDHEESH(MINOR),REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JAYA,W/O.SUDHEESH,PARAMBUMMALAPARAMBU HOUSE,NEENDOOR KARA,VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE 683522 ``` ``` 3AKHIL AGED 9 YEARS S/O.SUDHEESH(MINOR),REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND ``` ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` NATURAL GUARDIAN JAYA,W/O. SUDHEESH,PARAMBUMMALPARAMBU HOUSE,NENDOOR KARA,VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE 683522 ``` - **`4 SUJATHA,W/O SURENDRAN AGED 62 YEARS PARAMBUMMALPARAMU HOUSE,NEENDOOR KARA,VADAKEKARA VILLAGE,`** - **`5 SIBI,S/O SEBASTIAN KALATHIPPARAMBIL.HOUSE,PALLIPPURAM KARA,PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE`** - **`6 PRAKASAN S/O RAMAN MANNALY HOUSE,CHERAI.P.O`** ``` BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH SRI.SAJAN MANNALI SMT.SANTHI K.PAI SMT.V.N.SHASHIKALA ``` ``` 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.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The Respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.902/ 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, is the appellant 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 wife, children and mother of the deceased by name Sudheesh, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.07.2008. According to them, on 14.07.2008, at about 11 a.m., while the deceased was driving an autorickshaw bearing reg.no.KL-7/AV-6648 through VypinMunambam road, a bus bearing reg.no.KL-7/AY-3249 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the autorickshaw and as a result of which he 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 ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` Rs.17,93,500 limited to Rs.15,00,000/-. 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 A6. 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.13,00,600/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 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.A.N Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/appellants, and Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/3[rd] respondent. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 5 ``` 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/appellant is that the Tribunal has awarded 40% income towards future prospects instead of 25%. Another contention raised by him is that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection in addition to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of consortium. Further he would submit that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50000 on the head loss of estate and Rs.25000/- on the head funeral expenses which are on the higher side. 11. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the deceased was working as a driver, earning Rs.5000/- per month, and the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. 12. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was a driver by profession and as such the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5000/- is on the lower side. 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 6 ``` notional income of a coolie, during the year 2008 will come to Rs.6500/-. From Ext.A5 it is revealed that the deceased was a driver by profession. At the time of the accident also, he was driving a goods Autorickshaw. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a driver by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.8000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. 13. Since, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 44 years, only 25% 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 14, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 4 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/4 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in **Sarla Verma** (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs12,60,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection. In the light of the decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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.1,93,600/- (48,400 x 4). 15. 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. 16. Towards Pain and sufferings the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50000/-, which according to the learned standing counsel, is on the higher side. In this case the deceased died on the date of accident itself. Therefore, the compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering is on the higher side and hence it is reduced to Rs.25000/-. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,16,900/-, 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|Loss of dependency/Loss|873600|1260000| ||of earnings||| |2|Loss of estate|50000|18150| |3|Loss of consortium to 1st<br>petitioner|100000|193600| |4|Medical expenses|1000|1000| |5|Loss of love and<br>affection|200000|---------| |6|Pain and suffering<br>endured by the deceased|50000|25000| |7|Funeral and allied<br>expenses|25000|18150| |8|Damage to clothing and<br>articles|1000|1000| ||**Total**|**1300600**|**1516900**| ||Enhanced amount-|**216300**|| 19. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of directing the 3[rd] **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26153 ``` ``` MACA NO.995 OF 2014 ``` **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** respondent to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,16,900/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, 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