Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunitha vs Sivadasan @ Babu
2024 Latest Caselaw 9458 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9458 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sunitha vs Sivadasan @ Babu on 4 April, 2024

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
   THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                       MACA NO. 3992 OF 2019
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.972 OF 2016 OF
             MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       SUNITHA
            AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. BINU THOMAS (LATE),
            VELLETTATH HOUSE, CHEERAKUZHI, PALLIKUTH P.O.,
            CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, NILAMPUR, MALAPPURAM - 679334.
    2       NATHEIN V. P.
            AGED 3 YEARS, MINOR, S/O. BINU THOMAS (LATE), REP. BY
            MOTHER/GUARDIAN SUNITHA, W/O. BINU THOMAS (LATE),
            VELLETTATH HOUSE, CHEERAKUZHI, PALLIKUTH P. O.,
            CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, NILAMPUR, MALAPPURAM - 679334.
            BY ADV C.DINESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       SIVADASAN @ BABU
            AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA KURUP, ELAYODATH HOUSE,
            THRIKKALANGODE P. O., KOORANKUNNU, KARAKKUNNU AMSOM,
            ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676123
    2       CHANDRADAS
            S/O. KARUPPAN, 6/472, KAROTH HOUSE, KARAKKUNNU P. O.,
            ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676123
    3       NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
            REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION II,
            IIND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, NEAR STATE BANK OF
            TRAVANCORE, ARYADATHPALAM, MAVOOR ROAD - 673001
    4       ANNAMMA THOMAS
            AGED 69 YEARS
            W/O. THOMAS (LATE), VELLETTATH HOUSE, CHEERAKUZHI,
            PALLIKUTH P. O., CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, NILAMPUR TALUK,
            MALAPPURAM - 679334.
            SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
            SMT.K.S.SANTHI
            SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
     THIS   MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 3992 OF 2019

                                         2


                                C.S.SUDHA, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------------
                          M.A.C.A. No.3992 of 2019
                ----------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(the Act) has been filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.972/2016 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, (the

Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award

dated 13/02/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents before the

Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described

in the original petition.

2. According to the petitioners, on 26/05/2016 at 11 a.m., the

deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-71/7233

through the public road from the place by name Kalikkavu to Wandoor.

When he reached in front of the bus stand at Thazhe Kalikkavu, a bus

driven by the first respondent bearing registration No.KL-33/A-7300

knocked down the deceased who sustained serious injuries to which he MACA NO. 3992 OF 2019

succumbed on the same day. The first respondent driver, the second

respondent owner and the third respondent insurer of the offending

vehicle are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner.

Hence the petitioners, the wife and minor son of the deceased, claimed

an amount of ₹55,60,000/- as compensation under various heads.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement

admitting that the offending vehicle had a valid policy, but denying the

liability.

5. The fourth respondent, who is the mother of the deceased,

filed written statement supporting the claim.

6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8

were marked on the side of the petitioners. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced by the respondents.

7. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of

the first respondent resulting in the incident and hence awarded an

amount of ₹21,54,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of MACA NO. 3992 OF 2019

the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved,

the petitioner has come up in appeal.

8. 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.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The main challenge raised by the petitioners against the

impugned Award is fixing of the notional income of the deceased at

₹11,000/- per month. As per the petitioners' case, the monthly income

of the deceased as an aluminium fabricator and farmer was ₹45,000/-.

To substantiate the said aspect, the wife of the deceased and the first

petitioner was examined as PW1. In the light of the testimony of PW1,

the income of the deceased ought to have been taken as claimed, goes

the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Per contra, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer that, going

by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional

income of the deceased could have been fixed only at ₹10,500/- per MACA NO. 3992 OF 2019

month. Here, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹11,000/-,

which is apparently and obviously more than what has been fixed for a

Coolie in Ramachandrappa (Supra). Therefore, the argument is that

no further increase is contemplated or warranted.

11. It is true that it was practically impossible for the petitioners

to produce any documentary evidence to establish the monthly income

of the deceased. The deceased was only 31 years or so when then

incident occurred. Therefore, at that age, he cannot be expected to have

much savings also. In the light of the decision in Ramachandrappa

(Supra), though the notional income was liable to be fixed only at

₹10,500/-, the Tribunal has fixed it at ₹11,000/- per month. That being

the position, I find no ground for interference in the matter.

12. Challenge was also raised against the compensation awarded

under the other heads also. However, on going through the impugned

award, I find that reasons have been given by the Tribunal for the

finding and the amounts awarded are appropriate and just compensation.

Therefore, I find no reasons to interfere with the said finding.

In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed. MACA NO. 3992 OF 2019

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

C.S. SUDHA JUDGE

NP

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter