Kerala High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Joseph Mathai on 7 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019
and 1453 of 2019
1
2025:KER:60348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 672 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.09.2018 IN OPMV NO.988 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PALA.
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P(MV) NO.988 OF 2015:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(MV)
NO.988 OF 2015:
1 JOSEPH MATHAI,
S/O.MATHAI, MUNDUNADAYIL HOUSE,
EDAMARUKKU (PO), EDAMARUKU,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686652.
2 MARY ANTONY,
W/O.JOSEPH MATHAI, MUNDUNADAYIL HOUSE,
EDAMARUKKU (PO), EDAMARUKU,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686652.
3 JINCY MARIA JOSEPH,
D/O. JOSEPH MATHAI,
MUNDUNADAYIL HOUSE,
EDAMARUKKU (PO),
EDAMARUKU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686652.
M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019
and 1453 of 2019
2
2025:KER:60348
4 RAJESHMON M.M.,
S/O.MOHANDAS, NEW SIDHAPUDUR,
COIMBATORE, NOW RESIDING AT MANHADITHARA HOUSE,
PARATHODU VILLAGE,
RAMAKALMEDU KARA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT -685571.
BY ADV SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 07.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1453/2019, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019
and 1453 of 2019
3
2025:KER:60348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 1453 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.09.2018 IN OPMV NO.998 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(MV) NO.998/2015:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 & 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)
NO.998/2015:
1 DEVASYA VARKEY,
S/O. VARKEY, KUZHIPPIL HOUSE,
EDAMARUKU P.O, MELUKAVU,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686652.
2 ANNAMMA THOMAS,
W/O. DEVASYA VARKEY,
KUZHIPPIL HOUSE, EDAMARUKU P.O,
MELUKAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686652.
3 RAJESHMON M.M,
S/O. MOHANDAS, NEW SIDHAPUDUR,
COMBATORE, NOW RESIDING AT MANHADITHARA HOUSE,
PARATHODU VILLAGE, RAMAKALMEDU KARA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685571.
M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019
and 1453 of 2019
4
2025:KER:60348
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 07.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.672/2019, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019
and 1453 of 2019
5
2025:KER:60348
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019
and 1453 of 2019
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) Nos.988/2015 and 998/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award dated 15/09/2018. The respondents in these appeals are the claim petitioners and the first respondent the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.
2. The claim petitioners in O.P(MV) No.988/2015 are the parents and sister of deceased Jinson Jospeh and the claim petitioners in OP(MV) No.998/2015 are the parents of deceased Bipin Devasya. According to the claim petitioners, on 22/02/2015 M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 6 2025:KER:60348 at about 09:00 p.m., while deceased Bipin Devasya was riding motorcycle bearing no.KL-35 F-4156 with deceased Jinson Jospeh as his pillion rider through Erattupetta - Edamaruku road and when they reached at Valiamangalam, car bearing registration no.TN-66/A-1536 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked them down, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries to which they succumbed.
3. The first respondent-owner cum driver of the offending car filed written statement stating that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent.
4. The second respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased persons were disputed. The compensation claimed was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 7 2025:KER:60348 claim petitioners. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondent. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹23,32,000/- in O.P.(MV) No,988/2015 and an amount of ₹27,85,600/- in O.P(MV) No.998/2015 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that in the light of the dictum in Pournami v. Sandhya Sudheer, 2008 (4) KLT 817, it can be M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 8 2025:KER:60348 seen that there was negligence on the part of the deceased persons as there were three persons on the motorcycle, which was involved in the accident. It is submitted that the very fact that there were two pillion riders would show that the rider must have lost balance resulting in the accident. Therefore, the argument advanced is that the first respondent/driver of the car alone cannot be held liable or held negligent in this case. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that this aspect was considered by the Tribunal and for cogent reasons, has rejected the said contention of the second respondent and found that there was no negligence on the part of the rider or the pillion riders of the bike that was involved in the incident and hence there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
10. As per Ext.A6 final report, the first respondent herein, namely, the accused, is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) IPC. In the light of the dictum in New India Assurance Co. M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 9 2025:KER:60348 Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3) KHC 595, the charge sheet/final report is prima facie evidence of negligence and in case any person has got any objection to the findings or the opinion of the investigating officer in the final report, the burden would be on him to disprove the same and to prove otherwise. In the case on hand, the final report is seen marked without any objection from the side of the third respondent/insurer. No evidence has also been let in to show that the rider of the motorbike or the fact that there were more than one pillion rider had contributed to the accident. That being the position, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that it was the first respondent, who was negligent, resulting in the accident. MACA No.672 of 2019
11. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the second respondent- Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that an amount of ₹15,000/- fixed by the M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 10 2025:KER:60348 Tribunal as notional income is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be brought down. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the income fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
11.1. The fact that the deceased was a tile worker is not seen disputed. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurancee Company Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income of a coolie is liable to be fixed at ₹10,000/- in the year 2015. Being a tile worker, I find that his notional income can be fixed as ₹13,000/-. Pain and sufferings
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the deceased died on the same day and therefore an amount of ₹30,000/- awarded under this head is on the higher side. Admittedly, the accident took place on 22/02/2015 at 09:00 p.m. and he died on the same day at around 11:15 p.m. Therefore, an amount of ₹15,000/- under this head M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 11 2025:KER:60348 would be just and reasonable.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in appeal No. claimed Awarded by Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of earnings Nil Nil Nil (No modification)
2. Transport to 10,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/-
hospital (No modification)
3. Medical expenses 15,000/- Nil Nil
(No modification)
4. Other incidental 30,000/- Nil Nil
expense (No modification)
5. Damage to 5,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing (No modification)
6. Pain and 40,000/- 30,000/- 15,000/-
sufferings
7. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
(No modification)
8. Compensation for 2,00,000/- Nil Nil
loss of love and (No modification)
affection
9. Compensation for 15,00,000/- 22,68,000/- 19,65,600/-
loss of [13,000 +
dependency (13,000/- x 40%)
x 12 x 13 x1/2]
10 Loss of estate - 15,000/- 15,000/-
(No modification)
Total 18,00,000/- 23,32,000/- 20,14,600/-/-
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 12 2025:KER:60348 deducting the compensation by an amount of ₹3,17,400/- (total compensation = ₹20,14,600/- that is, ₹23,32,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus ₹3,17,400/- deducted in appeal). MACA No.1453/2019
15. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the second respondent-
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that an amount of ₹18,000/- fixed as notional income by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be brought down. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for fixing the notional income at ₹18,000/- and therefore there is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
16. The deceased was a tile worker. In addition to the same, the Tribunal noticed that he was a technically qualified person, who was also intending to go abroad and take up M.A.C.A.Nos. 672 of 2019 and 1453 of 2019 13 2025:KER:60348 employment. Therefore, taking into account the said aspect, the notional income was fixed as ₹18,000/-. I do not find any infirmity in the reasonings given by the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
Pain and sufferings
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that an amount of ₹30,000/- granted by the Tribunal under this head is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be reduced. Admittedly, the accident took place on 22/02/2015 at 09:00 p.m. and the deceased died on the next day that is, on 23/02/2015. Therefore, an amount of ₹30,000/- granted is reasonable and I do not find any grounds for interference.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms