Paul Antony and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (MACA No. 2866 of 2014)

``` 2025:KER:27959 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2866 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2013 IN OPMV ``` ``` NO.880 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS ``` ``` TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** - **`1 PAUL ANTONY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE VARKEY ANTONY,LAYIKARY HOSUE, MITHRAKARY P O, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA DIST.`** - **`2 CHIRSTEENA PAUL (MINER), AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.PAUL ANTONY, LAYIKARY HOUSE, MITHRAKARY P O, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WARD I, ALAPPUZHA DIST.`** - **`3 CHRISTO PAUL, AGED 15 YEARS, S/O.PAUL ANTONY, LAYIKARY HOUSE, MITHRAKARY P O, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WARD I, ALAPPUZHA DIST.`** - **`4 CHRISLIN PAUL, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O.PAUL ANTONY, LAYIKARY HOUSE, MITHRAKARY P O, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WARD I, ALAPPUZHA DIST.`** ``` BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA ``` M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 ``` -2- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27959` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`*1 K.O.JOSE [DELETED], S/O.OUSEPH, KULAPPARAMBAN HOUSE, CHERIYA MAPPALASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST.`** ``` *(RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS AS PER ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN M.A.C.A NO.2866/2014). ``` - **`2 JOSEPH JOHN @ SUNNY, S/O.OUSEPH, PUTHUKKULAM HOUSE, NEAR VALLON CHIRAKULAM,NALUKODY P O, PAIPPADU KARA, PAYIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM.`** - **`3 BIJU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,`** ``` KANNAGHERIL HOUSE, NEAR VALLON CHIRAKULAM, NALUKODY P O, PAIPPADU KARA, PAYIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY KOTTAYAM. ``` - **`4 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MULLACKAL P O, ALAPPUZHA.`** - **`5 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`6 PRASANNAN,`** - **`S/O.MADHAVAN, K S R T C, DRIVER, POOMATTATHIL HOUSE, CEMENT KAVALA BHAGOM,CHAPPATHUKARA, ANA VILASOM PO, ANA VILASAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.`** ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ``` ``` ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. P.K.MANOJKUMAR ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN ``` M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:27959 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27959` ``` -4- ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.880/2006 on the file of the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha 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 husband, children and mother of the deceased by name Jolly Paul, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.12.2005. According to them, on 27.12.2005, at about 8.15 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a KSRTC bus, a tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KL-5/J-8622 driven by the 3[rd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the bus and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and later on she succumbed to the injuries, on the same day. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the registered owner, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner and 4[th] 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.29,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:27959 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -5- ``` 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 testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A23. 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.11,07,210/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners 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.T.Anilkumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent and Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:27959 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -6- ``` income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the deceased was working as dietitian in Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla, earning Rs.4,564/- per month. The Tribunal also fixed her monthly income at Rs.4,564/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Ext.A13 series certificates show that, the deceased had passed B.Sc. Degree in April 1989 and passed diploma in Applied Nutrition and Dietetics in July 1993. 11. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. However from Ext.13 series documents it is proved that the petitioner was B.Sc. Graduate and a Dietitian by profession. 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, in the year 2005 will come to Rs.5000/-. Therefore, the petitioner being a Dietitian by profession, her notional income is fixed at Rs.6000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 36 years. Therefore, 50% 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 15, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi** M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:27959 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -7- ``` **Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 5 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 Rs.12,15,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.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 together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- (48,400 x 5). 14. 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. 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-, which according to the learned M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27959` ``` -8- ``` 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/-. 16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,21,300, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |Sl.<br>No<br>.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded<br>by Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded<br>in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Ambulance charges|3,000/-|3,000/-| |2|Compensation for<br>funeral expenses|25,000/-|18,150/-| |3|Compensation for pain<br>and suferings|5,000/-|25,000/-| |4|Compensation for loss<br>of consortium|1,00,000/-|2,42,000/-| |5|Compensation for loss<br>of love and afection|50,000/-|Nil| |6|Compensation for loss<br>of dependency|9,24,210/-|12,15,000/-| |7|Loss of estate|---|18,150/-| ||**Total**|11,07,210/-|**15,21,300**| ||Enhanced Rs.4,14,090/-||| M.A.C.A.No.2866 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:27959 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -9- ``` 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 4[th] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,21,300 (Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty one thousand and three hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 347 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, 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** ADS