Kerala High Court
Mrs.Alice Devasia vs Mrs.Rosy Mathew on 11 April, 2025
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 692 OF 2015
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.04.2014 IN OPMV NO.372 OF 2012 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1
MRS.ALICE DEVASIA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O DEVASIA, THARAPPEL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
2
MISS. CHINJU SEBASTAIN
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O DEVASIA, THARAPPEL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.JOSHI
SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MRS.ROSY MATHEW
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O MATHEW, KUNNATHOOR HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM,
PIN:686 141, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2 MR. BAIJU E.B.
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O NOT KNOWN, ERAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKODE P.O., VAIKOM,
PIN:686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3 THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM,
PINCODE:686001.
BY ADV VPK.PANICKER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.372/2012 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, 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 wife and daughter of the deceased by name
Devasia, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.10.2011.
According to them, on 05.10.2011, at about 6 p.m., while the deceased was
riding a scooter, a bus bearing reg.no.KL 36/670 driven by Respondent No.2
in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down and as a result of which he
sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the
driver and 3rd 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.15,56,000/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement,
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
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 documentary
evidence Exts.A1 to A5 and B1.
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.5,46,000/- 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?
9. Heard Sri.P.M.Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K. Panicker, 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. 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 working as Auto
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
consultant, earning Rs.15000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly
income at Rs.5000/-.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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Though, it was claimed
that the petitioner was an autoconsultant and getting a monthly income
Rs.15000/-, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the same. Therefore, as
per the dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to
be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8000/-.
12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 59 years.
Therefore, 10% 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 9, as held in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the
deceased was married who left behind 2 dependents, towards personal and
living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come
to Rs.6,33,600/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.75000/- towards loss of consortium
and Rs.10000/- 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.96800/- (48,400 x 2).
14. 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.
15. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of
the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation
awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is
enhanced to Rs.25000/-.
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 petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a
total compensation of Rs.7,93,700/-, 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 Transport to hospital 1000 1000
2 Damage to clothing and 1000 1000
articles
3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150
4 Compensation for loss of 414000 633600
dependency
5 Pain and sufferings 10000 25000
6 Loss of love and affection 10000 -------
7 Loss of estate 10000 18150
8 Loss of consortium 75000 96800
Total 546000 793700
Enhanced Rs. 247700
2025:KER:31955
MACA NO.692 OF 2015
18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.7,93,700/- (Rupees Seven
Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Only), less the amount already
deposited, if any, along with interest the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the
date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of
205 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%).
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
Pvv
