Ramseena, Nusrat & Naseera M.P. v The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

``` 2025:KER:25119 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 4078 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2018 IN OPMV NO.86 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VADAKARA ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** |**`1`**|**`RAMSEENA,`**| |---|---| ||**`AGED 27 YEARS,`**| ||**`D/O.LATE MOIDU, PURANGELERI PUTHOORVATTAM HOUSE,`**| ||**`BALUSSERY, THAMARASSERY THALUK,`**| ||**`KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`**| |**`2`**|**`NUSRATH,`**| ||**`AGED 25 YEARS,`**| ||**`D/O.LATE MOIDU, M.M.PARAMBATH HOUSE,`**| ||**`EMMAMPARAMBA, UNNIKULAM,`**| ||**`KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 574.`**| |**`3`**|**`NASEERA.M.P,`**| ||**`AGED 20 YEARS,`**| ||**`D/O.LATE MOIDU, M.M.PARAMBATH HOUSE,`**| ||**`EMMAMPARAMBA, UNNIKULAM,`**| ||**`KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 574.`**| ## **`BY ADV ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL`** ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM AMARJYOTHI COMPLEX, QUILON, PIN – 691 008. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER`** M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25119 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:25119` ``` -3- ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** (Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2025) The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.86/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara 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 140 and166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the daughters of the deceased by name Moidu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.09.2015. According to them, on 20.09.2015, at about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased along with his wife were trying to cross the zebra line near 20[th] Mile bus stop, a car bearing Registration No.KL-61/B1094 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked them down and as a result of which both of them sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same 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.28,75,500/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25119 ``` ``` -4- ``` 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 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.10,01,200/- 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.Zubair Pulikool, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, 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 them, M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:25119` ``` -5- ``` the deceased was working as a coolie and was also doing timber business, earning Rs.750/- per day, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.9,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 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 2015 will come to Rs.10,000/-. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a coolie and was also engaged in timber business getting a daily income of Rs.750/-. One of the petitioners was examined as PW1 to prove that her father was doing timber business also in addition to his job as a coolie. In the above circumstances considering the fact that, the deceased was also engaged in timber business, his notional income is fixed at Rs.11,000/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 60 years. Therefore, there is no scope for any future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 9, 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.7,92,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:25119` ``` -6- ``` 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses 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.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3). 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 not awarded any compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that an amount of Rs.25,000/- to be awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 ``` -7- ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:25119` be just and reasonable. 17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.10,04,500/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |Sl.<br>No<br>.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by<br>Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded<br>in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|9,15,200/-|7,92,000/-| |2|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|5,000/-| |3|Damage to clothings|1,000/-|1,000/-| |4|Pain and suferings|...|25,000/-| |5|Loss of love and<br>afection|50,000/-|Nil| |6|Funeral expenses|15,000/-|18,150/-| |7|Loss of estate|15,000/-|18,150/-| |8|Loss of consortium|….|1,45,200/-| ||**Total**|10,01,200/-|**10,04,500/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.3,300/-||| 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.10,04,500/(Rupees ten lakhs four thousand and five hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest rate 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 M.A.C.A.No.4078 of 2018 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25119 ``` **==> picture [23 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 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