Kerala High Court
Bindu vs Ajayan on 24 March, 2026
MACA.No.126 of 2017
1
2026:KER:25411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948
MACA NO. 126 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.12.2016 IN OPMV NO.984 OF 2015
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BINDU
AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHOOR HOUSE, NEAR CHACKO
MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM, CALVARY ROAD, POOTHOLE PO,
THRISSUR-680004 (WIFE OF DECEASED)
2 AISWARYA MINOR,
AGED:12 YEARS, (D.O.B 30.05.03)
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN,
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER BINDU, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN,
PUTHOOR HOUSE, NEAR CHACKO MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM,
CALVARY ROAD, POOTHOLE PO, THRISSUR-680004
3 ANANYA MINOR
AGED:9 YEARS (D.O.B 31.12.006) D/O LATE
RAMAKRISHNAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER BINDU,
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHOOR HOUSE, NEAR CHACKO
MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM, CALVARY ROAD, POOTHOLE PO,
THRISSUR-680004
4 THANKA
AGED:60 YEARS, W/O PONNI PUTHOOR HOUSE, POOTHOLE PO,
THRISSUR-680004 (MOTHER OF DECEASED)
BY ADV SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 AJAYAN
S/O GOPALAN, MANNAYANDADU HOUSE, NELLIYAMKUNNAM,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678541 (DRIVER OF KL 08 AH 8797)
MACA.No.126 of 2017
2
2026:KER:25411
2 MANAGING PARTNER
K.K.MENON MOTOR SERVICE ANTHIKAD P.O,
THRISSUR-680641 (OWNER OF KL 08 H 8797)
3 CHOLA MANDALAM GERNERAL INSURANCE SERVICES PVT LTD
MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM, 678101
POLICY NO:2204552340000260 VALID FROM 23/5/2015 TO
22/5/2016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.126 of 2017
3
2026:KER:25411
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.126 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March 2026
JUDGMENT
The claimants in OP(MV) No.984/2015 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Appellants/claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of the victim who died in a motor vehicle accident.
2. On 26.09.2015 at about 9.30 a.m, while the victim, Ramakrishnan, was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-08-AN-4299, a bus bearing registration No.KL-08-AH-8797, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent, collided with the autorickshaw driven by the victim. In the said accident, the victim sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the R1, who was the driver of the bus. R2 is the RC owner MACA.No.126 of 2017 4 2026:KER:25411 and R3 is the insurer of the offending bus. R3 insurance company, admitted the existence of a valid policy.
3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹13,03,700/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate, claimants have come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation.
4. Heard both sides. Records perused.
5. There is no dispute over the fact that the victim Ramakrishanan met with a motor vehicle accident on 26.09.2015. It is not in dispute that the bus bearing registration No.KL-08-AH-8797 driven by R1 hit on the autorickshaw driven by the victim and victim succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. There is no challenge over the fact that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by R1.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager; that the notional income taken by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation is very low; that the compensation MACA.No.126 of 2017 5 2026:KER:25411 awarded under all heads are on a lower side and it is not a just and reasonable compensation as mandated by law.
7. Let us see whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum.
8. According to the appellants/claimants, deceased was a fish vendor earning ₹20,000/- per month and he was the breadwinner of the family.
9. The learned Tribunal took notional income as ₹7,000/- per month on the ground that no evidence was let in to prove the nature of the occupation of the deceased and to prove the monthly income of the deceased.
10. It is to be noted that even in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet qua the accident the occupation of the deceased has been stated as fish vendor.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month and the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income as ₹7,000/- per month. Further, it was contended that if one goes by the Minimum Wages Act, 2017, his daily wage can be taken as ₹810/- per day. MACA.No.126 of 2017 6
2026:KER:25411
12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the insurance company/R3 contended that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and therefore the wage under the Minimum Wages Act, 2017, cannot be taken.
13. Having regard to the occupation of the deceased this Court is of the view that monthly income of ₹15,000/- can be taken as the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of assessing compensation.
14. The victim was aged 48 years at the time of accident. Therefore, 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. If 25% is thus added to the notional monthly income of ₹15,000/-, the income would come to ₹18,750/- (₹15,000 +₹3,750). The victim had four dependents. Therefore, from the said income 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased [Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009(6)SCC 121)]. Hence, after deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses his monthly contribution to the family would be ₹14,062/- [18,750- 4688]. Since the victim was aged 48, the multiplier applicable to MACA.No.126 of 2017 7 2026:KER:25411 him is 13. Accordingly, under the head loss of dependency claimants are entitled to ₹21,93,672/- (₹14,062 x12x13).
15. Under the head funeral expenses the Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹25,000/-. In view of the guidelines of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra) respondents/claimants are entitled to only ₹15,000/- under the said head. Accordingly, a reduction of ₹10,000/- is to be made under the said head from the award passed by the Tribunal.
16. Under the head loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/-. Claimants are entitled to get ₹15,000/- under the head loss of estate (See Pranay Sethi's case). Accordingly, a sum of ₹15,000/- is awarded under the said head.
17. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium to the widow viz. the 1 st claimant in the O.P and a further sum of ₹1,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection.
18. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati [2020(9) SCC 644] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium and therefore there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love MACA.No.126 of 2017 8 2026:KER:25411 and affection as a separate head. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any amount under the head loss of love and affection as a separate head. Instead as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the each of the claimants are entitled to consortium of ₹40,000/- each. Thus under the head loss of consortium an amount of ₹1,60,000/- (40,000x4) is awarded.
19. Award of the Tribunal under all other heads needs no interference.
20. In the result, M.A.C.A stands allowed. The compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is as indicated in the tabular statement here below:
Sl. Head of Claim Amount Total amount
No. awarded by after
the Tribunal enhancement
in appeal
1 Loss of earning (Total) ---- ----
2 Loss of earning (partial) ---- ----
3 Transportation to hospital 3000/- 3,000/-
4 Extra nourishment ---- ----
5 Damage to clothing and articles 1,000/- 1,000/-
etc.
6 Medical expenses ---- ----
7 Personal assistance
---- ----
8 Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
(25,000-10,000)
MACA.No.126 of 2017
9
2026:KER:25411
9 Pain and Suffering ---- ----
10 Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/-
11 Compensation for future ---- ----
prospectus
12 Loss of earning power ---- ----
13 Loss of dependency 10,64,700/- 21,93,672/-
14 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 1,60,000/-
(40,000x4)
15 Compensation for loss of love & 1,00,000/- ----
affection
Total 13,03,700/- 23,87,672/-
Amount enhanced ₹10,83,972/- (23,87,672-13,03,700)
21. The claimants are entitled to get compensation of ₹23,87,672/- from R1 to R3. R1 to R3 in the O.P are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount as modified by this Court with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Apportionment of the award amount shall be as ordered by the learned Tribunal.
22. R3 insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the Bank Account of the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. MACA.No.126 of 2017 10
2026:KER:25411
23. The claimants shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any of the appellants towards tax, balance Court Fee and legal benefit fund.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE Mms