Kerala High Court
Jinesha Menon K vs R.Sasidharan Nair on 7 April, 2025
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:30685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 IN OPMV NO.1372 OF 2010
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :-
JINESHA MENON K.
W/O LATE S. JYOTHISH NAIR, KOLUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
LAKSHMI KRISHNA HOUSE, ANNALLUR P.O, CHALAKKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 :-
1 R.SASIDHARAN NAIR
S/O LATE V.P RAGHAVAN PILLAI, JANAKI MANDIRAM,
FORT, MAVELIKKARA, MAVELIKKARA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE 690 101.
2 HEMALATHA, W/O R. SASIDHARAN NAIR, JANAKI
MANDIRAM, FORT, MAVELIKKARA, MAVELIKKARA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE 690 101.
3 RATISH S. NAIR., S/O R SASIDHARAN NAIR,
JANAKI MANDIRAM, FORT, MAVELIKKARA,
MAVELIKKARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE 690 101.
4 DHANALAKSHMI
S/O R SASIDHARAN NAIR, JANAKI MANDIRAM, FORT,
MAVELIKKARA, MAVELIKKARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE 690 101.
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:30685
5 ROCKEY, S/O POULOSE, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE,
MURINGOOR P.O, 680 316
6 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CHALAKKUDY 680 307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
3
2025:KER:30685
JUDGMENT
The 4th respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.1372/2010 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda is the appellant 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 and siblings of the deceased by name
Jyothish Nair, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
06.10.2010. According to them, on 06.10.2010, at about 8.55 am, while the
deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-7/BN7177
through Chalakkudy - Ashtamichira public road, a bus bearing Registration
No.KL-8/N-5977 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent
manner, knocked him down. As a result of which, he sustained serious
injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on the very same day.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer
of the offending vehicle. The widow of the deceased is the 4th respondent.
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.1,44,59,000/- limited to Rs.1,20,00,000/-.
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2025:KER:30685
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 the oral testimonies of
PWs 1 and 2 and Rws 1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12
and B1 to B16.
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.79,07,940/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the 4th respondent 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?
9. Heard Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners/appellants, and Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the 3rd respondent, as instructed by Sri.P.Jacob Mathew.
10. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal.
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2025:KER:30685
According to the learned counsel, the deceased was working as a Senior
Software Engineer in Souriau India Private Ltd., Cochin getting a monthly
income of Rs.60,735/-. However, the Tribunal has fixed his notional income
at Rs.39,807/-, which, according to him, is on the lower side. On the other
hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the insurer would argue that
the notional income fixed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Ext.B16 pay
slip and Ext.B13 Bank statement to prove the income of the deceased. As per
Ext.B13 Bank statement, it is seen that at July 2020, the deceased was
getting a salary of Rs.40,503/-. From August, 2020 onwards, he was getting
Rs.53,976/-. From Ext.B16 pay slip, it can been seen that his gross salary
was Rs.60,735/- and after a deduction to the tune of Rs.6,760/-, the take-
home salary was Rs.53,975/-. In Ext.B15, the income tax return for the year
2010 - 11, the total annual income is shown as Rs.5,26,064/-. According to
the learned counsel, in Ext.B5, the total salary was not shown, as the salary
increase was in August 2010. I find merit in the above argument, and as
such, the salary of the deceased is to be taken as shown in Ext.B16 pay slip.
12. As per Ext.B16, the total salary of the deceased at the time of
the accident was Rs.60,735/-. Therefore, his annual income during the
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2025:KER:30685
relevant year was Rs.7,28,820/-. The income tax payable during the relevant
year was fixed Rs.1,23,646/- and the professional tax payable was Rs.2500/-.
Therefore, the annual income, less the income tax and professional tax
payable will come to Rs.6,02,674/- (7,28,820 - 1,26,146). So, the monthly
income of the deceased less the income tax and professional tax payable will
come to Rs.50,222/-.
13. Since, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 31 years
and he was a permanent employee in Souriau India Private Ltd., 50% of the
monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the
decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC
680] and the multiplier to be applied is 16, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was
married who left behind 3 dependents, towards personal and living expense,
1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra).
In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to
Rs.96,42,624/-.
14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection. In the light of the
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2025:KER:30685
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a
consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents, children and spouse) are
entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an
increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and
funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards
loss of consortium, petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of
Rs.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3).
15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further
compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the
decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others,
(2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and
affection is to be deducted.
16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and
reasonable.
17. Therefore, the appellant/4th respondent along with the original
petitioners together are entitled to get a total compensation of
Rs.98,54,124/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2025:KER:30685
below, for easy reference:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Transportation expenses 5000 5,000
2 Funeral expenses 25000 18,150
3 Pain and sufferings 25000 25,000
4 Loss of dependency 7642940 96,42,624
5 Loss of estate 10,000 18,150
6 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 Nil
7 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 1,45,200
Total 79,07,940 98,54,124
Enhanced to Rs. 19,46,184
18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.98,54,124/- (Rupees
Ninety Eight Lakh Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Four
Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8%
per annum, from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with
proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today.
MACA NO. 1725 OF 2016
2025:KER:30685
On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the
entire amount to the petitioners and appellant, in the ratio fixed by the
Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
SMA
