Kerala High Court
Omana vs Prakasan on 7 April, 2025
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
1
2025:KER:32665
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. 3716 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.07.2017 IN OPMV NO.550 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS 1 & 2:
1 OMANA
AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.LATE VIKRAMAN,
EDAKATTIL HOUSE, KRISHNAKRIPA,
KITTAMENON ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA
DESOM & VILLAGE & P.O.,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 KARTHIKA
AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.LATE VIKRAMAN,
EDAKATTIL HOUSE, KRISHNAKRIPA, KITTAMENON
ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA DESOM & VILLAGE &
P.O.,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRAKASAN
S/O.KUMARAN, THERKKAYIL HOUSE,
KONATHUKUNNU DESOM, VELLANGALLUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680662.
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2
2025:KER:32665
2 THE MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR.
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN, SC
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.479/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
3
2025:KER:32665
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. 479 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.07.2017 IN OPMV NO.550 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,OMANA
BUILDING,M.G ROAD, KOCHI-35
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT. LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN, SC
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS 1 & 2:
1 OMANA
W/O.LATE VIKRAMAN, EDAKATTIL HOUSE,
KRISHNAKRIPA, KITTAMENON ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA DESOM,
VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DIST.
2 KARTHIKA
D/O.LATE VIKRAMAN,EDAKATTIL HOUSE,KRISHNAKRIPA,
KITTAMENON ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA DESOM, VILLAGE & P.O,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.3716/2017, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
4
2025:KER:32665
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.550/2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda are the appellants in
MACA.No.3716/2017 and respondent No.3 in the OP is the appellant in
MACANo.479/2018. (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 wife, daughter and mother of the deceased by name
Vikraman, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
21.2.2014. According to them, on 21.2.2014, at about 11 a.m., while the
deceased was riding a motorcycle through Irinjalakuda private bus
stand- KSRTC bus stand road and while he was overtaking a three
wheeler goods vehicle bearing No.KL7-AM-7873, driven by the 1 st
respondent, the 1st respondent suddenly swayed the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner so that it hit against the motorcycle of the deceased
and he fell down and sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2025:KER:32665
injuries on 18.3.2014.
3. The 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and 2nd respondent is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. 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.39,80,000/- limited to
Rs.35,00,000/-.
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 A13. 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.20,86,800/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioners preferred MACA.No.3116/2017 and respondent
No.3 in the O.P. preferred in MACA. No.479/2018.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2025:KER:32665
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri. V. Binoy Ram,, the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners/appellants, and Smt. Latha Susan Cherian, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the
offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by
the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was a business man, earning
Rs.30,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at
Rs.6000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income
fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie,
during the year 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/-. Since the petitioners could not
prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of
the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa
(supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2025:KER:32665
Rs.9,500/-.
12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer would argue
that the Tribunal has added 50% of the monthly income towards future
peospectus instead of 10%. Further, the learned counsell would argue that the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- each towards funeral expenses
and loss of estate and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and
affection and consortium, which according to the learned counsel are on the
higher side. She has also challenged the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal at 9%.
13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 58 years.
Therefore, 10% of the monthly income alone 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 9, 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.7,52,400/-.
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2025:KER:32665
14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. 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 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,
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2025:KER:32665
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and
reasonable.
17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.22,73,900/-, as modified and recalculated above and
given in the table below, for easy reference:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Funeral expenses 25,000/- 18,150/-
2 Transportation expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
3 Medical expenses 12,75,000/- 1275000/-
4 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/-
5 Loss of dependency 4,96,800/- 7,52,400/-
6 Love and affection 1,00,000/- Nil
7 Loss of estate 25,000/- 18150/-
8 Loss of Consortium 100000 1,45,200/-
Total 20,86,800/- 22,73,900/-
Enhanced Rs.1,87,100/-
18. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of as follows:
The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.22,73,900/-
(Rupees twenty two lakh seventy three thousand nine hundred Only), less the
amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the
Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with
MACA. No.3716/2017 & 479/2018
2025:KER:32665
proportionate costs in MACA.No.3716 of 2017, within a period of two
months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). No
costs in MACA 479 of 2018.
19. 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.
