High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-02-04Appeal allowed in part; quantum recalibrated. I...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v C. P. Ali and Vahida Ali

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:15185

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-02-04
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The 3rd respondent (insurer) is directed to deposit Rs. 24,96,330/- within two months from today, after excluding any court fees already paid. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners (parents) in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, without delay and as per applicable rules, with adjustments for the heads modified in the judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; quantum recalibrated. Insurer directed to deposit Rs.24,96,330 within two months; Tribunal to distribute the amount to petitioners per tribunal ratio, excluding court fees, without delay.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Respondents

C. P. Ali
Vahida Ali

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. P. K. Panicker
• Advocate for the Appellant, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Jayaram

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2557 of 2017, heard an appeal by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in O.P. (MV) No. 236/2016, for the death of Junaid Bin Ali in a motor vehicle collision on 26.03.2015. The Tribunal found negligence by the driver and awarded Rs 26,45,230 to the petitioners (the deceased’s parents). The insurer challenged the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal’s notional income (Rs 15,000 per month for a 3rd-year mechanical engineering student) and the addition of 50% for future prospects were excessive. The High Court examined evidence, noted expert opinions and multiple precedents, and recalculated compensation, holding that the notional income of Rs 15,000 was not wholly unrealizable but that the future-prospects addition and some heads of compensation should be adjusted. Relying on Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, the court applied an 18 multiplier and 40% for future prospects, with a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses, to compute loss of dependency as Rs 22,68,000. The court also altered awards for funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium/estate, and held that compensation for love and affection could be disallowed in the circumstances, following Somwati. The appeal was allowed in part, directing deposit of Rs 24,96,330 within two months and redistribution by the Tribunal thereafter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pranay Sethi guidelines on future prospects and multiplier (National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi, 2017)
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 – multiplier and deduction for personal living expenses
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Somwati and Others (2020) 9 SCC 644 – restrictions on certain heads of compensation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contended that the Tribunal erred in applying a high notional income and in adding 50% towards future prospects. It urged adoption of lower competing precedents for engineering students (e.g., Rs. 8,000–12,000 monthly) and argued that Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000 for love and affection were excessive; it urged that the ‘loss of love and affection’ head be limited or excluded per Somwati, and that the overall award should align with the cited decisions (Narmadi Bai v. Triupati Arolu, Zuhara Razak, Ramakrishna Pillai, Nanu, etc.). It pressed for a more conservative computation of dependency with a smaller multiplier and reduced future-prospects contribution, seeking a lower corpus.

Contentions of Respondents

The petitioners contended that the Tribunal’s income assessment and the 50% future-prospects addition were reasonable given the deceased’s education and potential earnings. They relied on established precedents (National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Zuhara) to justify the use of future prospects and the multiplier of 18. They argued that losses such as loss of estate and loss of consortium were properly considered, while love and affection could be included as per Pranay Sethi and Somwati, and requested protection of dependents’ welfare. They urged full compensation to reflect the dependency losses, suffering, and funeral costs as awarded by the Tribunal, maintaining that the overall sum should be preserved or enhanced only modestly, not drastically reduced.

Cited Precedents (9)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to justify 40% addition for future prospects and general approach to compensation calculation.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Cited for multiplier selection and living expenses deduction framework.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Somwati and Others	(2020) 9 SCC 644	Positive	Cited to limit/clarify awards for love and affection in light of the court’s approach to such heads.
Narmadi Bai v. Triupati Arolu	2023 KHC 7008	Mentioned Only	Noted as a benchmark for notional income ranges; not adopted directly.
Meena Pawaia and Others v. Asharaf Ali and Others	2021 (6) KHC 596	Mentioned Only	Cited as a precedent on notional income levels; used comparatively.
Ramakrishna Pillai and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd	2015 (3) KHC 750	Mentioned Only	Referenced in discussion of comparative notional incomes.
Nanu.K and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited	MACA 565 of 2019	Mentioned Only	Cited as another data point on notional income.
Fathimath Zuhara @ Zuhra Razak	2016 KHC 691	Mentioned Only	Cited for notional income benchmarks in engineering students.
Ramakrishna Pillai And Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd	2015 (3) KHC 750	Mentioned Only	Repeated reference in notional income discussion.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v C. P. Ali and Vahida Ali and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:15185 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** # **`TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 15TH MAGHA, 1946`** # **`MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017`** ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DUTY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1C.P.ALI S/O. SEETHU, CHETTITHODI POOVATHUMKUZHI HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR, VALLAPPUZHA P.O., KULUKKALLUR P.O. - 679 337 (FATHER OF DECEASED JUNAID BIN ALI) ``` ``` 2VAHIDA ALI ``` ``` W/O. C.P. ALI, CHETTITHODI POOVATHUMKUZHI HOUSE, KULUKKALLUR, VALLAPPUZHA P.O., KULUKKALLUR P.O. - 679 337 (MOTHER OF DECEASED JUNAID BIN ALI) ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.P.JAYARAM`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ``` ``` ON 04.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 2 ``` 2025:KER:15185 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## J U D G M E N T ## Dated this the 4[th] day of February, 2025 The 3[rd] respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.236/ 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, 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 parents of the deceased Junaid Bin Ali, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.03.2015. According to them, on 26.03.2015, at about 9.20 a.m, while the deceased was riding pilion on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KL 55 N 3996, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL 9 AE 8199 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on 30.03.2015, while under treatment. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner 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 ``` 2025:KER:15185 ``` `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Rs.26,50,000/-. 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 A17 were marked. 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.26,45,230/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3[rd] respondent 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.V.P.K Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/3[rd] respondent, and Sri.P Jayaram, the learned Counsel for the respondents/petitioners. 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 appellant/3[rd] respondent is regarding the income of `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:15185` the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a 3[rd] year Mechanical Engineering Student at SVS Engineering College. The Tribunal has fixed his monthly income at Rs.15,000/-. 11. According to the the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/appellant, the notional income of the deceased fixed by the tribunal at Rs. 15000/- is on the higher side. Further he pointed out that the tribunal has added 50% of the notional income towards future prospects, which is also on the higher side. Further he would argue that the tribunal has awarded Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, which are also on the higher side. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioner would argue that the notional income fixed by the tribunal is only reasonable and therefore no interference is called for. The deceased was a 3[rd] year Mechanical Engineering student at SVS Engineering College, Coimbatore at the time of the accident. The tribunal has fixed his notional income at Rs.15,000/- and 50% was added towards future prospects. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Narmadi Bai v. Triupati Arolu** [2023 KHC 7008], wherein the notional income of a Second year Engineering student involved in a accident of 2010 was fixed at Rs.8000/-. In the decision **Meena** `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:15185` **Pawaia and Others v. Asharaf Ali and Others** [2021 (6) KHC 596], relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the notional income of a 3[rd] year Engineering Student involved in a accident of 2012 was fixed by the Apex Court as Rs.10,000/-. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **National Insurance Co.Ltd, Chennai v. Fathimath Zuhara @ Zuhra Razak** [2016 KHC 691] wherein, in an accident of the year 2005, the notional income of a 2[nd] year Engineering student was fixed at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in **Ramakrishna Pillai And Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd** [2015 (3) KHC 750], this Court fixed the notional income of a fourth Semester B.Tec Student in a accident involved in the year 2006 at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in **Nanu.K and others v. National Insurance Company Limited** , a single bench of this Court in (MACA 565 of 2019), fixed the notional income of a final year engineering student in the year 2015 at Rs.22,000. In the light of the above decisions, I am constrained to hold that, the notional income of a third year Mechanical Engineering student fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is not at all on the higher side and hence it is accepted. 13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years. Therefore, 40 % of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:15185` 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 18, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was a bachelor who left behind two dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/2 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in **Sarla Verma** (supra). Therefore the tribunal was not justified in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects. In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.22,68,000/-. 14. It appears that tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the heads ‘loss of estate’ and ‘loss of consortium’. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- 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. 96800/- (48,400 x2). 15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:15185` 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. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case one day after the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lesser side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of **Rs.24,96,330/-** , as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transportation to hospital|5000|5000| |2|Treatment and medical expenses|65230|65,230| `MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017` 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** |`2025:KER:15185` 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Pain and suffering 20000 25,000 5 Loss of dependency 24,30,000 22,68,000 6 Compensation for loss of love, affection 1,00,000 ---- 7 Loss of estate ---- 18150 8 Loss of consortium ---- 96,800 Total Rs.26,45,230/- **Rs.24,96,330/-** Reduced Rs.1,48,900|`2025:KER:15185` 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Pain and suffering 20000 25,000 5 Loss of dependency 24,30,000 22,68,000 6 Compensation for loss of love, affection 1,00,000 ---- 7 Loss of estate ---- 18150 8 Loss of consortium ---- 96,800 Total Rs.26,45,230/- **Rs.24,96,330/-** Reduced Rs.1,48,900|`2025:KER:15185` 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Pain and suffering 20000 25,000 5 Loss of dependency 24,30,000 22,68,000 6 Compensation for loss of love, affection 1,00,000 ---- 7 Loss of estate ---- 18150 8 Loss of consortium ---- 96,800 Total Rs.26,45,230/- **Rs.24,96,330/-** Reduced Rs.1,48,900|`2025:KER:15185` 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Pain and suffering 20000 25,000 5 Loss of dependency 24,30,000 22,68,000 6 Compensation for loss of love, affection 1,00,000 ---- 7 Loss of estate ---- 18150 8 Loss of consortium ---- 96,800 Total Rs.26,45,230/- **Rs.24,96,330/-** Reduced Rs.1,48,900| |---|---|---|---| |3|Funeral expenses|25000|18150| |4|Pain and suffering|20000|25,000| |5|Loss of dependency|24,30,000|22,68,000| |6|Compensation for loss of love, affection|1,00,000|----| |7|Loss of estate|----|18150| |8|Loss of consortium|----|96,800| ||Total|Rs.26,45,230/-|**Rs.24,96,330/-**| ||Reduced||Rs.1,48,900| 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of **Rs.24,96,330/** -(Rupees Twenty four lakhs ninety six thousand three hundred thirty Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, within a period of two months from today. 20. 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. **==> picture [38 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,** ## **JUDGE** vnk/-