Kerala High Court
Basheer vs Siddique.K.A on 4 April, 2025
MACA. No.328/2017
1
2025:KER:29462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 328 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.06.2016 IN OPMV NO.305 OF
2014 OF III ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BASHEER
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
RESIDING AT MUJEEB RAHMAN MANZIL,
8TH MILE , POVVAL, KASARAGOD TALUK
AND DISTRICT,
2 RUKSANA
AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.BASHEER
RESIDING AT MUJEEB RAHMAN MANZIL,
8TH MILE, POVVAL, KASARAGOD TALUK
AND DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.P.HARISH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SIDDIQUE.K.A
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA,
SALEENA MANZIL, T V STATION ROAD,
ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD 671 121.
2 ABDUL HASHIM T A
S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOLLABADY,
POST ALAMBADY , KASARAGOD TALUK
AND DISTRICT, PIN-671 123.
MACA. No.328/2017
2
2025:KER:29462
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
3RD FLOOR, HIGH LANE PLAZA,
M G ROAD, KASARAGOD, PIN-671121.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FIANLLY
HEARD ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.328/2017
3
2025:KER:29462
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.305/2014 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kasaragod are the
appellants 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 a child by name Jalaluddeen, who
died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.5.2011. According
to them, on 13.5.2011, at about 4.30 p.m., while the child was playing in
front of his house, he went near to the road side to pick up the ball. At
that time, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-14H-6141 driven
by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the
child and he sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on
14.5.2011.
3. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2 nd respondent is the
owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2025:KER:29462
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 Rs.18,77,000/- limited to Rs.13,00,000/-.
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 documentary evidence
Exts.A1 to A9. 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.3,99,415/- and directed the insurer to pay the
same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioners 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?
2025:KER:29462
9. Heard Sri. K.P. Harish, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners/appellants, and Smt. Deepa George, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of
the offending vehicle are admitted. The learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
on the lower side.
11. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the child
was less than six years at the time of the accident. The date of birth
shown in the claim petition is 19.2.2006. Therefore, at the time of the
accident on 13.05.2011 the child has completed only five years.
Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel for the insurer, as per the
decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Assainar [2019 (4)
KLT 39], the consolidated sum of compensation payable till the year is
Rs.240,000/- and thereafter a further sum of Rs.12000/- is to be added
for every succeeding year. Since, in this case the accident was in the
year 2011, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency will
2025:KER:29462
come to only Rs.4,32,000/-(240000+12000×16).
12. In the decision in Kusmi Devi v. Md. Kasim & Anr. (Civil
Appeal No.3699/2023 decided on 15.5.2023) in the case of death of a
three year old child, involved in an accident in the year 1994, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a total compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- including sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground of global
enhancement. Since the compensation payable as per the decision in
Kusmi Devi (supra) is more than what can be paid under Assainar
(supra), the petitioners are entitled to get the higher amount of
Rs.6,00,000/-. In addition to the same, they are entitled to get a sum of
Rs.51,315/- spent towards medical treatment.
13. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.6,51,315/- (6,00,000+51,315).
14. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.6,51,315/- (Rupees
six lakh fifty one thousand three hundred and fifty one only), less the
amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered
2025:KER:29462
by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit,
excluding interest for a period of 125 days, the period of delay in filing
the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from
today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%).
15. 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
sou.
