Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.P.Ali on 4 February, 2025
2025:KER:15185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 4TH 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:
1 C.P.ALI
S/O. SEETHU, CHETTITHODI POOVATHUMKUZHI HOUSE,
KULUKKALLUR, VALLAPPUZHA P.O., KULUKKALLUR P.O. - 679
337 (FATHER OF DECEASED JUNAID BIN ALI)
2 VAHIDA 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
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2025 The 3rd 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 1st 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 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd 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 MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017 3 2025:KER:15185 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 3rd 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/3rd 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/3rd respondent is regarding the income of MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017 4 2025:KER:15185 the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 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 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 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 Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal
(in Rs.)
1 Transportation to hospital 5000 5000
2 Treatment and medical 65230 65,230
expenses
MACA NO. 2557 OF 2017 8
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 1,00,000 ----
love, affection
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 3rd 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.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE vnk/-