Prasanna Kumari and others v. Jinoj K and others

``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` **==> picture [57 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. 1763 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2016 IN OPMV ``` ``` NO.104 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - V, KOLLAM. ``` ``` APPELLANTS: ``` - **`1 PRASANNA KUMARI, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.BHARATHI, ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.`** - **`2 GOPAKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.PRASANNA KUMARI, ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.`** - **`3 PRIYA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.PRASANNAKUMARI, ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.`** - **`4 SANTHANAVALLY (DIED), AGED 76 YEARS, MOTHER OF GOPALAKRISHNAN, ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.`** - **`5 SASIDHARAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 61 YEARS (LEGAL HEIR OF SANTHANAVALLY) ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL,`** M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` ``` -2- ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE KOLLAM. ``` ``` 6SUSEELA, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KARUNA KARUNANKARAN (LEGAL HEIR OF SANTHANAVALLY) ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. ``` - **`7 SUDHA,`** ``` AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KARUNA KARUNAKARAN (LEGAL HEIR OF SANTHANAVALLY) ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. ``` ``` 8VENU GOPAL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KARUNA KARUNAKARAN (LEGAL HEIR OF SANTHANAVALLY) ETTANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1JINOJ K, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR WAGER MARKETING PRIVATE LTD., 29-47/C, NH.47, BYPASS THYKKULAM, COCHIN-682019 HAILING FROM KANDAMKOVIL VEEDU, NAMAS DESOM, VYKKARA VILLAGE, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNOOR. ``` - **`2 BINU RAJAN, S/O.VIJAYARAJAN, RAJ VIHAR, THEKKODICKAL P.O., MALLAPPALLY-689 613, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.`** ``` 3THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, COCHIN, PIN – 682 018. ``` - **`4 PREMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.PRASANNAKUMARI, ETTANTHARA, KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM,`** M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` NEENDAKARA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM – 691 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR ``` ``` 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.1763 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -4- ``` ## J U D G M E N T ## Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No104/2013 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, children and mother of the deceased by name Gopalakrishnan, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.04.2012. According to them, on 19.04.2012, at about 3.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a bicycle along the Kollam-Alappuzha N.H.47, a car bearing Registration No.KL-07/BE-2770 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner, the 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.10,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` **==> picture [57 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 testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15. 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.9,50,200/- 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.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] 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 income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as deckhand in a M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** `-6-` fishing boat, earning Rs.24,000/- 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. 11. Though the learned counsel has relied upon Exts.A8, copy of identity card issued from Fishermen Welfare Board, it only shows that the deceased was a fisherman by profession. The petitioners have not produced any driving licence of the deceased to prove that he was working as a deckhand. Therefore, in the light of the decision in 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. 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.8,500/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 50 years. Therefore, 10% 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 13, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 5 dependents, towards personal and M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** `-7-` 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.10,93,950/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. 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. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. Therefore, an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be the awarded under the head of ‘pain and sufferings’. 15. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 16. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:24054` ``` -8- ``` to get a total compensation of Rs.14,00,250/-, 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<br>Rs.)|Amount Awarded<br>in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|2,000/-|2,000/-| |2|Funeral expenses|25,000/-|18,150/-| |3|Loss of consortium|1,00,000/-|2,42,000/-| |4|Damages to clothing,<br>watch and bicycle|1,000/-|1,000/-| |5|Compensation for loss<br>of estate|50,000/-|18,150/-| |6|Compensation for loss<br>of dependency|7,72,200/-|10,93,950/-| |7|Pain and sufering|----|25,000/-| ||**Total**|9,50,200/-|**14,00,250/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.4,50,050/-||| 17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.14,00,250/- (Rupees forteen lakhs two hundred and fifty only), less the 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 M.A.C.A.No.1763 of 2016 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:24054 ``` `-9-` the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- **C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE** ADS