Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Kanakamma Sivan on 21 July, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020
1
2025:KER:54377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 315 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.713 OF
2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
KOTTAKKAL ARYAVAIDHYASALA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KANAKAMMA SIVAN
AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O.SIVAN, VADAKKE KAIMATTU HOUSE,
VADUTHALA JETTY P.O., AROOKUTTY VILLAGE,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 535.
2 MANJU.V.M.,
AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O.MANIYAPPAN,
VADAKKE KAIMATTU HOUSE,
VADUTHALA JETTY P.O.,
AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA-688 535.
M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020
2
2025:KER:54377
3 GOPIKRISHNAN.V.M.,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.MANIYAN, VADAKKE KAIMATTU HOUSE,
VADUTHALA JETTY P.O., AROOKUTTY VILLAGE,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 535.
4 HARIKRISHNAN.V.M.,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.MANIYAN, VADAKKE KAIMATTU HOUSE,
VADUTHALA JETTY P.O., AROOKUTTY VILLAGE,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 535.
5 YEDUKRISHNAN.V.M.,
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O.MANIYAN, VADAKKE KAIMATTU HOUSE,
VADUTHALA JETTY P.O., AROOKUTTY VILLAGE,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 535.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SMT.T.MANASY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020
3
2025:KER:54377
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.713/2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 26/06/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners 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 mother and four children of deceased Maniyappan. According to the claim petitioners, on 26/12/2017 at about 09:00 p.m., while the deceased was trying to step into the road from the median at the place by name Chandiroor in Alappuzha-Ernakulam national highway, M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020 4 2025:KER:54377 KSRTC bus bearing registration no.KL-15A-858 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed.
3. The first respondent-driver and second respondent-Managing Director of the KSRTC remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. Amount claimed under various heads was also contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the offending bus resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹32,28,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020 5 2025:KER:54377 from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has 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 heads are challenged by the third respondent/insurer-
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the notional income of ₹20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be reduced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that in the light of Ext.A9, the notional income fixed at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any interference. M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020 6
2025:KER:54377 9.1 Ext.A9 salary certificate has not been proved by examining the person who issued the same. Therefore the Tribunal was right in not relying on Ext.A9 to fix the income. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income of even a coolie in the year 2017 is liable to fixed at the rate of ₹11,000/- per month. The fact that the deceased was a carpenter, is not disputed. That being the position, I find that fixing the notional income at ₹14,000/- per month would be just and reasonable.
Loss of future prospects
10. It is submitted by both sides that the addition that has to be made to the established income towards loss of future prospects is 25%. However, the Tribunal wrongly added 30% and hence the same needs to be corrected. Accordingly, the addition that has to be made to the established income will be 25% of the income.
M.A.C.A.No.315 of 20207
2025:KER:54377 Compensation towards loss of consortium
11. The Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹1,20,000/-, that is, at the rate of ₹40,000/- each to claim petitioners 3 to 5, who are the children of the deceased. Admittedly, the first claim petitioner is the mother and claim petitioners 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. Therefore going by the dictums in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076: 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati, 2020 KHC 6530 :
(2020) 9 SCC 644, the first claim petitioner is entitled to an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium and the remaining claim petitioners, that is, the children of the deceased, to ₹40,000/- each towards parental consortium. Therefore, the total amount to which they are entitled is ₹2 lakhs. The Tribunal has granted only an amount of ₹1,20,000/-. Therefore, they shall be entitled to balance amount of ₹80,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020 8
2025:KER:54377
12. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Transport to 10,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/-
hospital (No modification)
2. Damage to 5,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
3. Funeral 40,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses (No modification)
4. Compensation 1,50,000/- 30,000/- 30,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
sufferings
5. Loss of short 2,00,000/- Nil Nil
expectation in (No modification)
life
6. Compensation 2,00,000/-
for loss of
guidance 1,20,000/- 2,00,000/-
(1,20,000/- +
Compensation 3,00,000/- 80,000)
for loss of love
and affection
7. Loss of estate 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
(No modification)
8. Compensation 45,00,000/- 30,42,000/- 20,47,500/-
for loss of 14,000/-
dependency (14,000/- +
25%) x 12 x 13
x 3/4
9. Medical 15,000/- Nil Nil
expenses (No modification)
M.A.C.A.No.315 of 2020
9
2025:KER:54377
10. Extra 15,000/- Nil Nil
nourishment (No modification)
11. Compensation 2,00,000/- Nil Nil
for mental (No modification)
agony
Total 56,20,000/- 32,28,000/- 23,13,500/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by deducting the compensation by an amount of ₹9,14,500/- (total compensation = ₹23,13,500/- that is, ₹32,28,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus ₹9,14,500/- deducted in appeal).
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms