Kerala High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company ... vs Padmakumar on 1 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.323 of 2020
1
2025:KER:57434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 323 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1284 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KOLLAM.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
5TH FLOOR,
BISHOP JEROME NAGAR JUNCTION,
CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER(LEGAL),
REGIONAL OFFICE,
RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 PADMAKUMAR
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O SUKUMARA PILLAI,
EDASSERI PUTHEN VEEDU,
MIDAPPALLY, CHITTOOR,
EDAPALLYCOTTA P.O,
PANMANA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691583.
M.A.C.A.No.323 of 2020
2
2025:KER:57434
2 VISHNU
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O PADMAKUMAR,
EDASSERY PUTHENVEEDU,
MIDAPPALLY, CHITTOR,
EDAPPALLY COTTA P.O, PANMANA,
KOLLAM, PIN -691583.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.323 of 2020
3
2025:KER:57434
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.323 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third
respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1284/2016 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal),
aggrieved by Award dated 27/08/2019. The respondents herein
are the claim petitioners in the petition. In this appeal, the parties
and the documents will be referred to as described in the original
petition.
2. The claim petitioners are the husband and son of
deceased Omana. According to the claim petitioners, on
15/05/2016 at 06:30 p.m., while the deceased was pillion riding
on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-2-W-6343 through
Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway and when she reached near
2025:KER:57434
Panmana Temple junction, car bearing registration no.KL-40-E-
5050 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner
knocked her down, as a result of which she sustained grievous
injuries to which she succumbed.
3. The first respondent-driver and the second
respondent-owner of the offending car remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part
of the first respondent. The averments in the petition regarding
age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed. The
amount claimed was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side
of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced
by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the
2025:KER:57434
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹20,90,912/- together with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate cost. Aggrieved by the Award, the third
respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
7. 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.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the third
respondent-insurer.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal
under the following heads is challenged by the third
respondent/insurer-
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent-insurer that the monthly income of the deceased fixed
by the Tribunal as ₹20,000/- per month, is on the higher side and
hence the same needs to be reduced. It is also submitted that in the
2025:KER:57434
light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC
236, the notional income can be fixed as ₹10,500/- per month.
9.1. Though the claim petitioners have raised a
contention that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month, no
materials or evidence was produced to substantiate the same. The
deceased was a housewife at the time of the accident and
therefore, I find that fixing the notional at ₹12,000/- per month
would be just and reasonable.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
(in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Transport to 10,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-
hospital and (No modification)
ambulance
charge
2. Damage to 5,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
3. Funeral 30,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses (No modification)
4. Postmortem 5,000/- Nil Nil
expenses (No modification)
2025:KER:57434
5. Compensation 50,000/- 30,000/- 30,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
sufferings
sustained by the
deceased
6. Compensation 1,00,000/- Nil Nil
for loss of love (No modification)
and affection
7. Compensation 3,00,000/- Nil Nil
for loss of love (No modification)
and affection
Compensation 1,00,000/-
for loss of
consortium -
parental 40,000/-
consortium to 1,00,000/- 40,000/- (No modification)
claimant no.2-
spousal 40,000/-
consortium to 40,000/- (No modification)
claimant no.1
compensation for
loss of support- 50,000/-
compensation for
loss of estate-
15,000/- 15,000/-
compensation for (No modification)
loss of amenities
and enjoyment in
life 11,61,600/-
compensation for 22,50,000/- 19,35,912/- 12,000/- +
loss of (12,000 x 10%)
dependency x 12 x 11 x 2/3)
Total 27,00,000/- 20,90,912/- 13,16,600/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by deducting the
2025:KER:57434
compensation by an amount of ₹7,74,312/- (total compensation =
₹13,16,600/- that is, ₹20,90,912/- granted by the Tribunal minus
₹7,74,312/- deducted in appeal).
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
