Kerala High Court
Chellamma Mohanan vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 12 August, 2025
2025:KER:60693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 3505 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2020 IN OPMV NO.893 OF 2017 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANTS/ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS:
1 CHELLAMMA MOHANAN
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O MOHANAN T.N,THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKOMDU.P.O,
KOOTHATTUKULAM,ERNAKULAM DT, PIN-686662.
2 SHIBI MURALI,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O MURALI.K.N,KATHILAKKATTIL HOUSE,MARADY.P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN-686673.
3 RAJESH.N.M,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN.T.N,THOTTATHIL
HOUSE,KIZHAKOMBU.P.O,KOOTHATTUKULAM,ERNAKULAM
DT,PIN-686662.
BY ADVS.
SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,DAIASAHAYAM
BUILDING,MAIN ROAD,PONKUNNAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686506.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON 12.08.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3505 OF 2020 :2:
2025:KER:60693
JUDGMENT
The Additional petitioners in O.P.(MV).No. 893 of 2017 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, have
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the tribunal on account of the death of one Mohanan
T.N, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 08.07.2017.
2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-
On 08.07.2017, at 4.45 p.m., while Sri.Mohanan T.N. was
walking along the side of Piravom- Koothattukualm public road
and when he reached near Koothattukulam Valavu Bhagom, a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-17-K-130, ridden by the 1st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit down Mohanan
and he sustained serious injuries, and later he succumbed to the
injuries on 26.10.2017, while undergoing treatment.
3. The rider and owner of the offending motorcycle were
arrayed as the 1st and 2nd respondents, respectively, whereas, the
insurer was arrayed as 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent
contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly
disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting
insurance coverage for the motorcycle involved in the accident.
During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner succumbed to
the injuries and hence, his legal heirs were impleaded as Additional
2025:KER:60693
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4.
4. During trial, from the side of the petitioners, one witness
was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A15. No evidence,
whatsoever, was produced from the side of the respondents.
5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of
the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-17-K-130 by the 1st
respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held
liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified
at Rs.10,42,910/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of the petition till realisation and proportionate costs.
Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the
tribunal, the petitioners have come up with this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too
meager and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and
damages suffered by the bereaved family of the deceased.
According to the learned counsel, the tribunal erred in assessing
the monthly income of the deceased, reasonably and consequently
awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head
2025:KER:60693
of loss of dependency. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent contended that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and hence, warrants no interference.
8. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that the
main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to
the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under the
head of loss of dependency. A perusal of the impugned award
reveals that for the purpose of determining compensation under
the head of loss of dependency, the tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. In the petition, although it
was averred that the deceased was a Coolie worker at the time of
the accident, no evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the
petitioners' side to substantiate their contention regarding the
occupation and income of the deceased. It was mainly taking note
of the said fact, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.9,000/-. Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident
occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, in view of the principles laid
down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the
tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs. 11,000/-.
2025:KER:60693
9. As the total number of dependents is three, 1/3rd of his
income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After
deducting the said amount, the monthly income of the deceased
will come to Rs.7,333/-. As the deceased was aged 61 years at
the time of the accident, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the
multiplier to be reckoned is 7. Hence, the petitioners are found
entitled to get an amount of Rs.6,15,972/- (Rs.7,333/- x 12 x 7)
as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Already an
amount of Rs.5,04,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under
the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are
found entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,11,972/- (Rupees One
lakh eleven thousand nine hundred and seventy two only) as
additional compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
10. Similarly, the tribunal awarded loss of consortium only
in favour of the 1st appellant and omitted to award any amount as
compensation under the head of loss of consortium in favour of
the 2nd and 3rd appellants, who are none other than the children of
the deceased. Their close relationship and bondage with the
deceased would certainly entitle them to get compensation under
the head of loss of consortium. Hence, an amount of Rs. 40,000/-
each has to be awarded to the 2nd and 3rd appellants as
2025:KER:60693
compensation under the head of loss of consortium. However, in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4)
KLT 662] the Apex Court made it clear that the compensation
under the conventional heads in a death case should be enhanced
at the rate of 10% in every three years. After making such an
enhancement, the 2nd and 3rd appellants are found entitled to get
an amount of Rs. 48,400/- each as compensation under the head
of loss of consortium.
11. As evident from the records, this is not a case of
instantaneous death. After the accident, the injured survived for
more than three months in a coma stage. Later, it was on
26.10.2017 he died. The pain and sufferings endured by the
deceased prior to his death can not be overlooked while awarding
compensation. Therefore, the petitioners have to be compensated
adequately for the pain and sufferings endured by the deceased
prior to his death. Hence, the petitioners are found entitled to get
an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation under the head of
pain and sufferings. Already an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been
awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the
said amount, the petitioners are found entitled to get an additional
compensation of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) as
compensation under the head of pain and sufferings.
2025:KER:60693
12. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no
interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs.2,98,772/-
(Rs.1,11,972/- + Rs.96,800/- + Rs.90,000/-) has to be added
towards the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the
appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs.2,98,772/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand nine
hundred and forty eight only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance
company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with
interest and proportionate costs before the tribunal within a period
of three months from the date of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
