[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sujitha vs Satheesan on 15 December, 2025
2025:KER:95802
MACA No.1027 of 2015
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MACA NO. 1027 OF 2015
OPMV NO.843 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUJITHA, W/O.LATE SUNIL, KIZHAKKEPRATHUKUDY HOUSE, KORATTY
SOUTH,POGAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 DEVIKA, D/O.LATE SUNIL, -DO- -DO-.
3 MINOR ANJANA, D/O.LATE SUNIL, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER
AND GUARANDIAN 1ST APPELLANT.
BY ADV SRI.T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SATHEESAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PONNAMBIL HOUSE,
POOLANI, P.O.MELOOR, THRISSUR-680 308.
2 UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.MUKUNDAN NAIR, POTTAYATH HOUSE, POOLANI,
P.O.MELOOR, THRISSUR-680 308.
3 THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., CHALAKUDY-680 307.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
08.12.2025, THE COURT ON 15.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:95802
MACA No.1027 of 2015
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.843
of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Irinjalakuda, claiming compensation. The respondents herein were the
respondents before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimant is that on 11.05.2008, while
the deceased was driving a car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/Z 5875 through
Potta - Irinjalakuda road, a tata sumo car bearing Reg.No.KL-09/E-6107
driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
car driven by the deceased, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the
deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of
₹17,50,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the
tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement,
admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing
the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 to PW4 were
examined and Exts.A1 to A7 & B1 were marked. The tribunal, after
2025:KER:95802
..3..
analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident
took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹7,35,800/- as compensation under
different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal,
the claimants have come up in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims
enhancement under the following heads:
5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the deceased was working as a Checker in the
Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund under the employment of toddy shop
contractors and was earning ₹8,050/- per month. It is further submitted
that the deceased was also having earnings as a part time kuri
canvassing agent of Pongam Kuries. However, the tribunal has fixed the
monthly income notionally only at ₹3,500/-, which is on the lower side.
The learned counsel relied on Ext.A4 income certificate as well as
Ext.A5 certificate issued by the Pongam Kuries to substantiate the
above contentions. In order to prove Ext.A4 income certificate, PW3 was
2025:KER:95802
..4..
examined, who deposed that Ext.A4 was issued by him while he was the
Manager of the toddy shop contractors. Though PW3 and PW4 were
examined to prove that the deceased was employed in Toddy Shop
No.50 of Cherpu range and was getting an income of ₹8,050/- per month
and they have deposed before the tribunal that the deceased was
earning ₹8,050/- per month, no supporting documents were produced to
prove the same. As per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
[(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident that occurred in 2008, the monthly
income of a coolie is fixed at ₹6,500/-. However, considering the
evidence adduced by the appellants and the fact that he was also
working as a canvassing agent for Pongam Kurie, I find it appropriate to
refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹9,000/-.
5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the
deceased is refixed at ₹9,000/-, compensation towards loss of
dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 42 years old at
the time of the accident, hence, 25% future prospects can be added to
the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 25% of the notional income
towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹11,250/-
(9000 + 2250). Accordingly, following the judgments in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla
2025:KER:95802
..5..
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the
appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹14,17,500/-
(11250 x 12 x 14 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be
an additional amount of ₹8,44,200/- under this head.
5.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection - The
learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal awarded
only an amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas, the
appellants are entitled to get a compensation of ₹40,000/- each, totalling
to ₹1,60,000/-. It is further submitted that following the judgment in
Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in
a span of three years from 2017. Accordingly, the appellants are
awarded a compensation of ₹48,400/- each towards loss of consortium,
totalling to ₹1,93,600/- (48400 x 4). Since the tribunal already awarded
an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under this head, there will be an additional
compensation of ₹93,600/-.
5.3.1. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
insurer submits that the tribunal awarded ₹25,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in
Pranay Sethi (supra). I find force in the submission of the learned
Standing Counsel. Once compensation is awarded under the head of
loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and
2025:KER:95802
..6..
affection as it amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New
India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and others [2020 (5)
KLT OnLine 1198 (SC). Therefore, the compensation awarded by the
tribunal towards loss of love and affection is deleted.
5.4. Loss of estate - The learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of
estate. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the
compensation under conventional heads ought to have been ₹15,000/-
and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years
from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I
deem it appropriate to award to the appellants a compensation of
₹18,150/- towards loss of estate.
5.5. Funeral expenses - On a perusal of the award, it is
seen that the tribunal awarded an amount of ₹25,000/- towards funeral
expenses. However, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the
maximum amount of funeral expenses ought to have been granted by
the tribunal is ₹15,000/-. Thus, there will be a deduction of ₹10,000/-
under this head.
6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of
compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records
2025:KER:95802
..7..
available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with
the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.
7. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, I fix interest on
the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till realization. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is
modified as follows:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified Total
claimed awarded in appeal compensation
(in ₹) by the (in ₹) (in ₹)
tribunal
(in ₹)
1. Transport to 2000 2000 - 2000
hospital
clothing
3. Medical expenses 2000 - - -
4. Funeral expenses 30000 25000 -10000 15000
5. Pain and suffering 10000 10000 - 10000
6. Loss of love and 40000 25000 -25000 deleted
affection
7. Loss of 150500 573300 844200 1417500
dependency
8. Life expectancy of 5000 - - -
the deceased
9. Loss of consortium 100000 100000 93600 193600
10. Loss of estate 5000 - 18150 18150
11. Educational and 50000 - - -
marriage expenses
of claimants 2 & 3
Total 1750000 735800 920950 1656750
2025:KER:95802
..8..
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants
are awarded an additional compensation of ₹9,20,950/- (Rupees nine
lakh twenty thousand nine hundred and fifty only) over and above the
compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The
respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest
and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. The appellants shall furnish copies of
the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent
insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance
company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to
furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to
deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being
made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants at the
earliest in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
