Ramani and Others v. Savithri Sanmughan and Jose and The National Insurance Company Ltd.

``` 2025:KER:23070 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.03.2013 IN OPMV NO.7 OF 2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, ``` ## **`THRISSUR`** ## **`APPELLANTS:`** |**`1`**|**`RAMANI`**| |---|---| ||**`AGED 44 YEARS`**| ||**`W/O. MANI, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE, ALOOR,`**| ||**`P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.`**| |**`2`**|**`CHANDRAN`**| ||**`AGED 46 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O. MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE, ALOOR,`**| ||**`P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.`**| |**`3`**|**`RAJAN M.`**| ||**`AGED 45 YEARS`**| ||**`H/O. SHEELA, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE, ALOOR,`**| ||**`P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.`**| |**`4`**|**`SREERAJ M.`**| ||**`AGED 20 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O. SHEELA, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE, ALOOR,`**| ||**`P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.`**| |**`5`**|**`SHYAMA M. MINOR`**| ||**`AGED 17 YEARS`**| ||**`D/O. SHEELA, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE, ALOOR,`**| ||**`P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (MINOR 5TH APPELLANT`**| ||**`REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN FATHER THE 3RD APPELLANT`**| ||**`HEREIN).`**| ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:23070` ## **`SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 SAVITHRI SANMUGHAN W/O. SHANMUGHAN, RESIDING AT EDAKKATTU HOUSE, P.O.ARIMBOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 620.`** - **`2 JOSE`** - **`S/O. ANTONY, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.ARIMBOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 620.`** - **`3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SMARAKA BUILDING, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR-680 001.`** ## **`BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR-SC`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23070 ``` ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.7/ 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, 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 and siblings of the deceased Mani, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.06.2006. According to them, on 30.06.2006, at about 7.15 p.m., while the deceased was waiting for the bus at Puthukulanagara bus stop, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-08/B 7529 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against him and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. 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.7,96,000/-(limited to 7,00,000) ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23070 ``` 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10, B1 and B2. 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. 4,39,800/- 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.T.C Suresh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar 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 ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23070` fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as Singer, earning Rs.5000/-per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3500/-. 11. 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 2006 will come to Rs.5,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.5,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2011 will come to Rs.5,500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.5,500/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 46years. Therefore, 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 13, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. The ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23070` Tribunal has deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expense and it is not under challenge. In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.7,15,000/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- 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 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, the 1[st] petitioner wife is entitled to get a sum of Rs.48,400/-. 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 ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:23070` awarded Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the same 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.8,30,444/-** , as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by<br>Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded in<br>Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transportation & Miscellaneous<br>expenses|Rs.3,000/-|Rs.3,000/-| |2|Medical expenses|Rs.2,744/-|Rs.2,744/-| |3|Funeral expenses|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.18150/-| |4|Pain & suffering|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.25,000/-| |5|Love and affection|Rs.25,000/-|NIL| ||Loss of consortium to 1st<br>petitioner|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.48,400/-| ||Loss of dependency|Rs.3,64,000/-|Rs.7,15,000/-| ||Loss of estate|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.18150/-| ||**Total**|**Rs.4,39,800/-**|**Rs.8,30,444/-**| ||Enhanced|Rs.3,90,644/-|| ``` MACA NO. 47 OF 2014 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23070 ``` 18. SIn the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of **Rs.8,30,444/-** (Rupees Eight lakhs thirty thousand four hundred fourty four 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 141 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** vnk/-