National Insurance Company Ltd v MujeeB Rahiman and Others

``` 2025:KER:23108 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/21ST PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 311 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2015 IN OPMV NO.413 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NOOR COMPLEX, NEAR ARAYEDATHUPALAM, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS SECTION, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ``` ## **`BY ADV SEBASTIAN VARGHESE`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 MUJEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MAMMIKUTTY, THETTUMMAL HOUSE, VENNAKKAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.`** ``` 2SUHARA, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.MUJEEB RAHIMAN, THETTUMMAL HOUSE, VENNAKKAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. ``` ``` 3DILSHARABY (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER MUJEEB RAHIMAN, THETTUMMAL HOUSE, VENNAKKAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. ``` M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 ``` -2- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:23108` - **`4 DILNA (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY FATHER MUJEEB RAHIMAN, THETTUMMAL HOUSE, VENNAKKAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.`** - **`5 DIL RIFAD (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY FATHER MUJEEB RAHIMAN, THETTUMMAL HOUSE, VENNAKKAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.`** - **`6 SUBAIR, S/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, CHUNKA CHAPPA KETTIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, AZHIYOOR P.O., VADAKKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.`** - **`7 ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, OTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAVAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.`** ``` BY ADVS. SMT.M.MANJU SRI.R.SUDHISH ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:23108` ``` -3- ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2025 The respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.413/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode 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 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents and siblings of the deceased by name Dilshad, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.11.2014. According to them, on 20.11.2014, at about 11.55 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle along the Thamarasherry-Koduvally road, a car bearing Registration No.KL-18/G2477 owned by the 1[st] respondent and negligently driven by the 2[nd] respondent knocked him down and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the next day. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner, 2[nd] respondent is the driver 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.25,95,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:23108` ``` -4- ``` 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10. 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.11,45,000/- 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.Sebastian Varghese, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.M.Manju, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are on the higher side. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,50,000/- towards love and affection, which are not allowable. M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:23108 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -5- ``` 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. According to him, the deceased was working as mobile phone technician, earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 12. 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 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/-. Since the petitioners could not prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.9,500/-. 13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 20 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 5 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 M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:23108 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -6- ``` come to Rs.14,36,400/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,50,000/- towards love and affection. 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 1 and 2 together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.96,800/(48,400 x 2). 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 and under the head of shock and mental agony are to be deducted. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the higher side. In this case the victim died on the day next to the accident. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:23108 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -7- ``` pain and suffering is on the higher side, and hence reduced to Rs.25,000/-. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. |Sl.<br>No<br>.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by<br>Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded<br>in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|5,000/-| |2|Funeral expenses|25,000/-|18,150/-| |3|Loss of love and<br>afection for P1 to 5|2,50,000/-|Nil| |4|Compensation for pain<br>and suferings of the<br>deceased|50,000/-|25,000/-| |5|Shock and Mental<br>agony of P1 to P5|2,50,000/-|Nil| |6|Loss of estate|25,000/-|18,150/-| |7|Loss of dependency|5,40,000/-|14,36,400/-| |8|Loss of consortium|….|96,800/-| ||**Total**|11,45,000/-|**15,99,500/-**| ||Enhanced Rs. 4,54,500/-||| 19. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,99,500/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs ninety nine thousand and five hundred Only), less the M.A.C.A.No.311 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:23108 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** amount already deposited, if any, along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). 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** ADS