Kerala High Court
Manonmani M vs Jaheerushen on 13 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
1
2025:KER:61044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 534 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.08.2018 IN OPMV NO.1383 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MANONMANI M.
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O HARIDAS,
VADAKKECHALLA,
GOVINDAPURAM.P.O,
MUTHALAMADA,
CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN-678507.
2 HAREESHMA (MINOR),
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O HARIDAS,
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND,
MANONMANI.M,
W/O HARIDAS, AGED 40YEARS,
VADAKKECHALLA, GOVINDAPURAM.P.O,
MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,678507.
3 HIMA(MINOR),
AGED 11 YEARS
D/O HARIDAS,REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT
FRIEND,MANONMANI.M, W/O HARIDAS,AGED 40
YEARS,VADAKKECHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM.P.O,
MUTHALAMADA,CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD
DISTRICT,678507.
M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
2
2025:KER:61044
BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JAHEERUSHEN
S/O KIJIR MOHAMMED,
MEENKARAI ROAD,
SUBBEN GOUNDEPUDUR,
POLLACHI TALUK,
TAMIL NADU, 642 001.
2 VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
7/137 KANNAPPA NAGAR,
MEENKARA ROAD,
POLLACHI,TAMIL NADU - 642 001.
3 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE,
414 VEER SAVARKAR MARG,
NEW SIDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE,
PRABHADEVI P.O.,MUMBAI-400025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
3
2025:KER:61044
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1383/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 04/08/2018. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. The claim petitioners are the wife and children of deceased Haridas. According to the claim petitioners, on 13/01/2016 at about 04:00 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motor cycle from the place by name Govindapuram to Kambrathchalla, pick-up van bearing registration no.TN-41/AL- M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020 4
2025:KER:61044 9106 driven by the second respondent knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased were disputed. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020 5 2025:KER:61044 amount of ₹15,91,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioners- Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased, a tyre resoling worker, was earning ₹25,000/- per month. To substantiate the claim, PW1 his employer was examined. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is quite low and hence it is submitted that the income that is fixed needs to be appropriately enhanced. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020 6 2025:KER:61044 counsel for the third respondent-insurer that in the absence of any evidence the Tribunal fixing the notional income at ₹10,000/- is quite reasonable and that no interference is called for.
9.1. The Tribunal was not inclined to completely rely on the testimony of PW1 to fix the income as claimed by the claim petitioners as there are no documents to substantiate the stand of PW1. However, the fact that the deceased was a tyre resoling worker, a skilled worker, is not seen disputed. On the other hand, the same is proved by the testimony of PW1. Though the testimony of PW1 is not satisfactory to establish the claim regarding the monthly income, the same is satisfactory to prove his avocation. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income of even a coolie in the year 2016 is liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/- per month. That being the position, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income of the deceased can be fixed as ₹12,000/-.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020 7 2025:KER:61044 following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Transport to 20,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
hospital (No modification)
2. Damage to 3,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
3. Funeral 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses (No modification)
4. Compensation for 5,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
loss of estate (No modification)
5. Loss of 2,00,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/-
consortium (No modification)
6. Compensation 1,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
suffering
7. Loss of love and 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
affection (No modification)
8. Compensation 20,00,000/- 14,00,000/- 16,80,000/-
for loss of [12,000/- +
dependency (12,000/- x 25%)
x 12 x 14 x2/3]
Total 15,91,000/- 18,71,000/-
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹2,80,000/- (total compensation = ₹18,71,000/- that is, ₹15,91,000/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹2,80,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020 8 2025:KER:61044 of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 400 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms