Padmakumari @ Padmaja and others v. Sarath and others

``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 1 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] 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. 1708 OF 2017 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.12.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.304 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 PADMAKUMARI @ PADMAJA AGED 44 YEARS, W/O SATHEESAN PILLAI, MANNATHARA, MEKATHIL, PARIMANAM,PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691 582.`** ``` 2SOUMYA AGED 23 YEARS,D/O SATHEESAN PILLAI, MANNATHARA, MEKATHIL, PARIMANAM,PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691 582. ``` ``` 3SANDHYA AGED 21 YEARS,D/O SATHEESAN PILLAI,MANNATHARA, MEKATHIL, PARIMANAM,PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691 582. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 SARATH`** ``` S/O GEETHA, KODIYIL KIZHAKATHIL, MANAKKARA,SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM-691 521. ``` - **`2 MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI BHAVAN, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001.`** ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** - **`3 KIZHUR M. MANNAKKATTU VILAKOMSANTHI NAGAR, WEST SIDE OF CHIRA, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM- 695 001.`** ``` 4MURALEEDHARAN MANNAKKATTU VILAKOM VEEDU (UTHRADOM) SANTHI NAGAR, WEST SIDE OF CHIRA, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O., ATIPRA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. ``` - **`5 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ICICI LUMBARD GIC LTD., GROUND FLOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.`** ``` BY ADVS. SRI. GEORGE A.CHERIAN SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SMT. LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN(K/412/2008) SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)(G-81) ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.304/ 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam are the appellants 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 and children of the deceased by name Satheesan Pillai, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.11.2013. According to them, on 04.11.2013, at about 6.45 p.m. while the deceased was walking through the zebra line of NH-47 at Parimanam junction, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-61 A/1968 ridden by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased and he was thrown away. At that time, a car bearing reg.No.KL-22-D 8018 driven by the 4[th] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the head of the deceased. As a result of which he sustained grave injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day, while under treatment. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner cum rider and the 2[nd] respondent is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. The 3[rd] ``` 4 ``` ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` respondent is the owner, 4[th] respondent is the driver and 5[th] respondent is the insurer of the car. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondents 1 & 4. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. The 2[nd] respondent insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. It was also disputed that at the time of accident, the 1[st] respondent did not have valid driving licence. 5. The 4[th] respondent filed a written statement, stating the car was insured with the 5[th] respondent. It was also disputed that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 6. The 5[th] respondent 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 car. It was also contended that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12. No evidence was adduced by the ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** respondents. 7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the respondents 1 & 4, awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,16,600/- with 9% interest and directed respondents 2 & 5 to pay the compensation equally. Since it was found that the 1[st] respondent had no driving licence at the time of accident, the 2[nd] respondent was permitted to recover the compensation paid by them from the 1[st] respondent. 8. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 10. Heard Sri.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent and Sri. George A. Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 11. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to them, the deceased was working as labourer, earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-.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 20213 will come to Rs.9000/-. 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.9,000/-. 13. The tribunal has awarded compensation for dependency in two columns namely Rs.6,72,000 in column No.8 and Rs.2,01,600/in column No.11. These two columns has to be considered together and thus the total compensation awarded by the tribunal for loss of dependency will come to Rs.8,73,600/-. 14. Since, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 43 ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` years, 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 3 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 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 Rs.12,60,000/-. (11250 x 12 x 14 x 2/3) 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- 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 together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,45,200/-(48,400 x 3). ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** 16. 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. 17. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the appellants/Petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.14,69,500/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount**<br>**awarded by**<br>**Tribunal (in**<br>**Rs.)**|**Amount**<br>**Awarded in**<br>**Appeal (in**<br>**Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|2,000|2,000| ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** |2|Damages to clothings and<br>articles|1,000|1,000| |---|---|---|---| |3|Others<br>Funeral expense|25,000|18,150| |4|Compensation for pain and<br>suffering|5,000|25,000| |5|Compensation for loss of<br>dependency|6,72,000|12,60,000| |6|Future prospects|2,01,600|| |7|Loss of love and affection|10,000|-| |8|Compensation for loss of<br>consortium|1,00,000|1,45,200| |9|Loss of estate|-|18,150| ||**Total**|**10,16,600**|**14,69,500**| ||Enhanced Rs.4,52,900/-||| 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the respondents 2 & 5 are directed to deposit equally, a total sum of Rs.14,69,500/- (Rupees Fourteen lakh sixty nine thousand five hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate 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%). 21. The tribunal has permitted the 2[nd] respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioners and to recover the same from the 1[st] respondent. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the above ``` MACA No.1708 of 2017 ``` ``` 10 ``` **==> picture [58 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24756 ``` finding and as such the order for pay and recovery is retained. 22. 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** S.M.K.