Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saleena and Alex Sajin B (Minor)

``` 2025:KER:21571 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 674 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2017 IN OPMV NO.186 OF 2015 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD / II ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD. ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALAKKAD, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI - 682 020. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SALEENA, W/O. LATE BRITTO, CHITOORAN VEEDU, KOLAMADACHALLA, MENONPARA P.O., PALAKKAD NOW RESIDING AT SINGAMUTHAN VEEDU, PAYATTUKKAD, KOYYAMARAKKAD, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD- 678 621. ``` ``` 2ALEX SAJIN B (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS, S/O. LATE BRITTO, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT KOLAMADACHALLA, MENONPARA P.O., PALAKKAD NOW RESIDING AT SINGAMUTHAN VEEDU, PAYATTUKKAD, KOYYAMARAKKAD, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD – 678 621. ``` ## **`BY ADV BABY MATHEW`** M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21571 ``` **==> picture [23 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2910/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 ``` 2025:KER:21571 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -3- ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2910 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.186 OF 2015 ``` ``` OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD / II ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD. ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** ``` 1SALEENA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O LATE BRITO,D/O CHINADWARANAYAKAM, CHITOORAN VEEDU, KOLAMADACHALLA, MENONPARA.P.O, PALAKKAD. NOW RESIDING AT SINGAMUTHAN VEEDU, PAYATTUKAD, KOYYAMARAKKAD,KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD – 678 621. 2ALEX SAJIN.B (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS, S/O LATE BRITTO ALIAS BRITTO THADEUS (MINOR), REP BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SALEENA, AGED 42 YEARS,W/O LATE BRITO, D/O CHINADWARANAYAKAM, CHITOORAN VEEDU, KOLAMADACHALLA, MENONPARA.P.O, PALAKKAD. NOW RESIDING AT SUNGAMUTHAN VEEDU, PAYATTUKKAD,KOYYAMARAKKAD,KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD – 678 621. ``` ## **`BY ADV BABY MATHEW`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, IIND FLOOR,MANGALAM TOWERS,NEAR TOWN BUS STAND, T B ROAD,P.ALAKKAD,KERALA-678014, ``` M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21571 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` (INSURER OF MAHINDRA BOLERO REG.NO.K L-49/E- 1867)POLICY NO 2209542334002012 VALID FROM 27/07/2014 TO 26/07/2015). ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.674/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21571` ``` -5- ``` ## J U D G M E N T ## Dated this the 10[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.186/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad are the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.2910/2019 and the 3[rd] respondent in the O.P.(M.V.) is the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.674/2018. (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 minor child of the deceased by name Britto, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.11.2014. According to them, on 05.11.2014, at about 2.00 a.m., while the deceased was walking along the side of the public road, a Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Registration number KL-49/E1867 driven by Respondent No. 2 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 and the 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.32,53,000/- limited to Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21571` **==> picture [23 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17. 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.16,42,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners and Respondent No.3 preferred these appeals. 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.Jacob Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.Baby 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 coolie, earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, but the Tribunal M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 ``` 2025:KER:21571 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** fixed his monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. 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 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.9,500/-. 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 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/-, 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.9,500/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 37 years. Therefore, 40% 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 Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 2 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.15,96,000/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 ``` 2025:KER:21571 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [23 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 13. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent would argue that the tribunal had added 15% of the income towards future prospects and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense which are on the higher side. 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.96,800/- (48,400 x 2). 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 the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21571` ``` -9- ``` 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.17,71,100/-, 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|Transportation<br>to<br>hospital and back|15,000/-|15,000/-| |2|Compensation<br>for<br>funeral expenses|25,000/-|18,150/-| |3|Compensation for loss<br>of pecuniary loss|13,50,000/-|15,96,000/-| |4|Compensation for loss<br>of consortium|1,00,000/-|96,800/-| |5|Damage to clothing and<br>articles|2,000/-|2,000/-| |6|Compensation for loss<br>of love and afection|1,00,000/-|-----| |7|Loss of estate|50,000/-|18,150/-| |8|Pain and suferings|-----|25,000/-| ||**Total**|16,42,000/-|**17,71,100/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.1,29,100||| 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.17,71,100/(Rupees seventeen lakhs seventy one thousand and one hundred Only), M.A.C.A.Nos.674 of 2018 and 2910 of 2019 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21571` **==> picture [29 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 499 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