Kerala High Court

Manonmani M vs Jaheerushen on 13 August, 2025

M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
                                  1

                                                2025:KER:61044

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947

                         MACA NO. 534 OF 2020

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.08.2018 IN OPMV NO.1383 OF

2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

PALAKKAD.

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

     1       MANONMANI M.
             AGED 40 YEARS
             W/O HARIDAS,
             VADAKKECHALLA,
             GOVINDAPURAM.P.O,
             MUTHALAMADA,
             CHITTUR TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             PIN-678507.

     2       HAREESHMA (MINOR),
             AGED 16 YEARS
             D/O HARIDAS,
             REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND,
             MANONMANI.M,
             W/O HARIDAS, AGED 40YEARS,
             VADAKKECHALLA, GOVINDAPURAM.P.O,
             MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT,678507.

     3       HIMA(MINOR),
             AGED 11 YEARS
             D/O HARIDAS,REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT
             FRIEND,MANONMANI.M, W/O HARIDAS,AGED 40
             YEARS,VADAKKECHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM.P.O,
             MUTHALAMADA,CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD
             DISTRICT,678507.
 M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
                                2

                                                2025:KER:61044


             BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       JAHEERUSHEN
             S/O KIJIR MOHAMMED,
             MEENKARAI ROAD,
             SUBBEN GOUNDEPUDUR,
             POLLACHI TALUK,
             TAMIL NADU, 642 001.

     2       VIJAYAKUMAR,
             AGED 32 YEARS,
             S/O RAMASWAMY,
             7/137 KANNAPPA NAGAR,
             MEENKARA ROAD,
             POLLACHI,TAMIL NADU - 642 001.

     3       ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
             ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE,
             414 VEER SAVARKAR MARG,
             NEW SIDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE,
             PRABHADEVI P.O.,MUMBAI-400025,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
             SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)



       THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
                                         3

                                                              2025:KER:61044



                                C.S.SUDHA, J.
                ----------------------------------------------------
                          M.A.C.A.No.534 of 2020
                ----------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 13th day of August 2025

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in

O.P.(MV) No.1383/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the

amount of compensation granted by Award dated 04/08/2018.

The respondents herein are the respondents 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 wife and children

of deceased Haridas. According to the claim petitioners, on

13/01/2016 at about 04:00 p.m., while the deceased was riding a

motor cycle from the place by name Govindapuram to

Kambrathchalla, pick-up van bearing registration no.TN-41/AL-

2025:KER:61044

9106 driven by the second respondent knocked him down, as a

result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he

succumbed.

3. The first respondent-owner and the second

respondent-driver remained ex-parte.

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written

statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part

of the second respondent. The averments in the petition regarding

age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased were

disputed. The compensation claimed under various heads was

contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and

Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners.

No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found

negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the

offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an

2025:KER:61044

amount of ₹15,91,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of the petition till realisation along with

proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim

petitioners have 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 both sides.

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal

under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioners-

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioners that the deceased, a tyre resoling worker, was earning

₹25,000/- per month. To substantiate the claim, PW1 his

employer was examined. However, the Tribunal fixed the

notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is quite low and hence it is

submitted that the income that is fixed needs to be appropriately

enhanced. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned

2025:KER:61044

counsel for the third respondent-insurer that in the absence of any

evidence the Tribunal fixing the notional income at ₹10,000/- is

quite reasonable and that no interference is called for.

9.1. The Tribunal was not inclined to completely

rely on the testimony of PW1 to fix the income as claimed by the

claim petitioners as there are no documents to substantiate the

stand of PW1. However, the fact that the deceased was a tyre

resoling worker, a skilled worker, is not seen disputed. On the

other hand, the same is proved by the testimony of PW1. Though

the testimony of PW1 is not satisfactory to establish the claim

regarding the monthly income, the same is satisfactory to prove

his avocation. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd,

(2011) 13 SCC 236, the income of even a coolie in the year 2016

is liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/- per month. That being the

position, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the

notional income of the deceased can be fixed as ₹12,000/-.

10. The impugned Award is modified to the

2025:KER:61044

following extent:

Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)

1. Transport to 20,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-

            hospital                                     (No modification)
2.         Damage to        3,000/-         1,000/-           1,000/-
          clothing and                                   (No modification)
             articles
3.           Funeral        50,000/-       15,000/-          15,000/-
            expenses                                     (No modification)
4.    Compensation for     5,00,000/-      15,000/-          15,000/-
        loss of estate                                   (No modification)
5.          Loss of        2,00,000/-      40,000/-          40,000/-
          consortium                                     (No modification)
6.       Compensation      1,00,000/-      15,000/-          15,000/-
          for pain and                                   (No modification)
           suffering
7.     Loss of love and    2,00,000/-     1,00,000/-        1,00,000/-
          affection                                      (No modification)
8.       Compensation     20,00,000/-     14,00,000/-       16,80,000/-
           for loss of                                       [12,000/- +
          dependency                                      (12,000/- x 25%)
                                                           x 12 x 14 x2/3]
             Total                        15,91,000/-      18,71,000/-

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing

the compensation by a further amount of ₹2,80,000/- (total

compensation = ₹18,71,000/- that is, ₹15,91,000/- granted by the

Tribunal + ₹2,80,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate

2025:KER:61044

of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization

(excluding the period of 400 days delay in filing the appeal) and

proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to

deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period

of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On

deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to

the claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after

making deductions, if any.