Kerala High Court

Leema Lawrence vs The Managing Director, Kerala State ... on 19 August, 2025

M.A.C.A.No.600 of 2020

                                  1

                                                 2025:KER:62404

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

 TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947

                         MACA NO. 600 OF 2020

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.11.2018 IN OPMV NO.2253 OF

2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

     1      LEEMA LAWRENCE
            AGED 31 YEARS,
            W/O.LATE JERONE BOSCO,
            SOBHA NIVAS, PALLAM, PULLUVILA P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 526.

     2      BENEDICT
            AGED 64 YEARS
            F/O.LATE JERONE BOSCO,
            S/O.AMBROSE, SOBHA NIVAS,
            PALLAM, PULLUVILA P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 526.

     3      MONICA
            AGED 62 YEARS
            M/O.LATE JERONE BOSCO,
            W/O.BENEDICT, SOBHA NIVAS,
            PALLAM, PULLUVILA P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 526.

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.C.S.SUMESH
            SHRI.V.VINAR


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
            TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023.
 M.A.C.A.No.600 of 2020

                               2

                                                 2025:KER:62404


     2      ABHIJIT M.M.
            S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY,
            MANAYILTHAZHAM, KANNANKARA,
            CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE - 673 616.

     3      THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
            NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
            TC 26/1436, GOVT. PRESS ROAD, GPO,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
            CORPN.
            SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN
            SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN
            SHRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.



      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.600 of 2020

                                        3

                                                              2025:KER:62404



                              C.S.SUDHA, J.
               ----------------------------------------------------
                         M.A.C.A.No.600 of 2020
               ----------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 19th 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.2253/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the Tribunal), aggrieved

by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated

30/11/2018. 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 parents of

deceased Jerone Bosco. According to the claim petitioners, on

15/08/2014 at about 01:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding

motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-20/G-4980 through

Vizhinjam - Poovar road and when he reached the place by name

Karichal, KSRTC bus bearing registration no.KL-15/8724 driven

2025:KER:62404

by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked

him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to

which he succumbed.

3. The second respondent-driver of the offending

bus remained ex-parte.

4. The first respondent-owner filed written

statement denying negligence on the part of the second

respondent. The compensation claimed under various heads was

contended to be exorbitant.

5. The third respondent-insurer filed written

statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part

of the second respondent. The compensation claimed under

various heads was contended to be exorbitant.

6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and

Exts.A1 to A20 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners.

No oral or documentary evidence was produced by the

respondents.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found

2025:KER:62404

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

offending bus resulting in the incident and hence awarded an

amount of ₹19,78,000/- together with interest @ 8% 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.

8. 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.

9. Heard both sides.

10. 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 waiter, aged 28 years, was earning

₹32,000/- from his employment abroad. However, the Tribunal

fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is quite low and

hence the same needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it

is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-

2025:KER:62404

insurer, that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and

that it does not call for any interference.

10.1 The fact that the deceased was a waiter working

abroad is not seen disputed. The documents produced to establish

the claim regarding income was not accepted by the Tribunal as

the certificates were not attested by the Assistant Consular Office

attached to the Indian Embassy as required under the relevant

provision of law. I do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal not

accepting it because the documents were not countersigned by the

authority concerned. However, as stated earlier, the fact that he

was a waiter working abroad is not disputed. Therefore, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notional

income can be fixed as ₹14,000/- per month.

Compensation for loss of consortium

11. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the wife

and parents of the deceased. Going by the dictums in Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram,

(2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC

2025:KER:62404

3076: 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.

Somwati, 2020 KHC 6530 : (2020) 9 SCC 644, the first claim

petitioner, who is the wife is entitled to ₹40,000/- towards loss of

spousal consortium and the parents at the rate of ₹40,000/- each

towards loss of filial consortium. The Tribunal has awarded an

amount of ₹40,000/- which appears to be to the first claim

petitioner. As the parents are entitled to compensation towards

loss of filial consortium and as the same has not been granted by

the Tribunal, I find that they are entitled to an amount of

₹40,000/- each. As per the dictum in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (5) KHC 350: (2017)

16 SCC 680, pronounced on 31/10/2017, the consortium amount

has to be enhanced every three years by 10%. Hence, they are

entitled to two enhancements at the rate of 10% every three years.

Therefore, claim petitioners 2 and 3 will be entitled to ₹48,400/-

each. ₹40,000/- + (40,000 x 10%) = ₹44,000/- ₹44,000/-

+(44,000/- x 10%) = ₹48,400/- x 2 = ₹96,800/-.

12. The impugned Award is modified to the

following extent:

2025:KER:62404

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

1. Transport to 3,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/-

           hospital                                        (No modification)
2.          Extra             5,000/-          Nil               Nil
         nourishment                                       (No modification)
3.        Damage to           1,000/-         1,000/-          1,000/-
         clothing and                                      (No modification)
            articles
4.    Medical expenses       10,000/-          Nil               Nil
                                                           (No modification)
5.    Funeral Expenses       20,000/-        15,000/-          15,000/-
                                                           (No modification)
6.        Bystander's         1,000/-          Nil               Nil
           expenses                                        (No modification)
7.      Compensation         30,000/-          Nil               Nil
         for pain and                                      (No modification)
          sufferings
8.    Compensation for      3,00,000/-      19,04,000/-      26,65,600/-
          loss of                                             [14,000/- +
        dependency                                         (14000/- x 40%) x
                                                             12 x 17 x 2/3]
9.      Compensation        1,00,000/-       40,000/-         1,36,800/-
           for loss of                                        (40,000/- +
         consortium to                                         96,800/-)
       claim petitioners
             1 to 3
10.     Compensation        3,00,000/-       15,000/-          15,000/-
       for loss of estate                                  (No modification)
11.     Compensation        1,00,000/-         Nil               Nil
       for the love and                                    (No modification)
           affection
             Total          35,70,000/-     19,78,000/-      28,36,400/-
        (Claim limited
        to 35,00,000/-)




                                                   2025:KER:62404

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹8,58,400/- (total

compensation = ₹28,36,400/- that is, ₹19,78,000/- granted by the

Tribunal + ₹8,58,400/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate

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

(excluding the period of 120 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.