Kerala High Court
Pushpam vs Anurag.C.S on 28 March, 2025
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:27760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.06.2016 IN OPMV NO.216 OF 2012 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 PUSHPAM, W/O.LATE PAUL,CHAKKERY HOUSE,
KARALOM DESOM,VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 CLEO PAUL, S/O.LATE PAUL,CHAKKERY HOUSE,
KARALOM DESOM, VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 CLINI PAUL, D/O.LATE PAUL,CHAKKERY HOUSE,
KARALOM DESOM,VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4 CHRISI PAUL, S/O LATE PAUL,CHAKKERY HOUSE,
KARALOM DESOM,VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 :-
1 ANURAG.C.S
S/O.SREEDHARAN,
CHARTHANKUDATH HOUSE,
PADIYOOR.P.O,PIN-680695.
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:27760
2 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPLEX LTD
IRINJALAKUDA-680121.
BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016
3
2025:KER:27760
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.216/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, 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 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and father of the deceased by name Paul, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.01.2012. According to them, on 29.01.2012, at about 02.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-45-B-479 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on his motorcycle. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 30.01.2012.
3. The 1st respondent is the rider cum owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.20,40,000/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-.
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:27760
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11.
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.10,23,750/- 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.P.V.Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Smt.P.A.Raziya, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd 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 MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:27760 the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was an agriculturist, earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. Relying upon Exts.A8, A10 and A11, the learned counsel would argue that the deceased had 1.87 acres of agricultural land and from which he used to get a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. Since from Exts.A8, A10 and A11, it is revealed that the deceased was an agriculturist and he had 1.87 acres of agricultrual land, his notional income is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years. Therefore, 10% 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 11, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 5 dependents, towards personal and MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016 6 2025:KER:27760 living expense, 1/4 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.10,89,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,00,000/- 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.2,42,000/- (48,400 x 5).
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.
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016 7 2025:KER:27760
15. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
16. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.14,46,800/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Funeral expenses 25000 18,150
2 Transportation expenses 5000 5000
3 Medical expenses 43500 43,500
4 Pain and sufferings 30000 30,000
5 Loss of love and affection 2,00,000 Nil
6 Loss of estate 50,000 18,150
7 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 2,42,000
8 Loss of dependency 5,69,250 10,89,000
9 Bystander expenses 1,000 1,000
Total 10,23,750 14,46,800
Enhanced to Rs. 4,23,050
MACA NO. 3671 OF 2016
8
2025:KER:27760
17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.14,46,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred 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, 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 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 SMA