Kerala High Court
Raziya vs C. Natarajan on 12 February, 2025
2025:KER:19267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1337 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.12.2013 IN OPMV NO.1531 OF 2011 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
APPELLANTS:
1 RAZIYA
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, R.H.S MANZIL, THEKKECHERI, KANJAVELI
P.O., THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM.
2 HASHIR
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, R.H.S MANZIL, THEKKECHERI, KANJAVELI
P.O., THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM.
3 SHAMLA
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, R.H.S MANZIL, THEKKECHERI, KANJAVELI
P.O., THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SMT.BHANU THILAK
RESPONDENTS:
1 C. NATARAJAN
S/O.CHELLAPPAN CHETTIYAR, DWARAKA,AMBAZHA VAYAL,
PERINAD P.O., PIN: 691 601,KOLLAM.
2 GABRIELSO.SEBASTIAN.V.
CHERUPUSHPA SADANAM, SIN GARAPPALLY EAST KALLAD, KOLLAM
-691 627.
MACA NO. 1337 OF 2014 2
2025:KER:19267
3 CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH,KOLLAM - 691 013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 1337 OF 2014 3
2025:KER:19267
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2025
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1531/ 2011 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, are the appellant herein. (For the
purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank
before the Tribunal)
2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, by the by the two daughters and one son of the of the
deceased Muhammed Kutty, who died in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 27.05.2011. According to them, on 27.05.2011, at about 6.35
p.m., while the deceased was riding a two wheeler along the
Anchalummoodu-Kollam public road, a bus bearing Reg.No. KL-2 S 3300
driven by 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
vehicle of the deceased and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries
and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on same day, while under
treatment.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner , the 2nd respondent is the driver
and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the
petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
2025:KER:19267
offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was
Rs.6,06,500(limited to 6,00,000)
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the
accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1
and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10. No evidence was adduced by the
respondents.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.56,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.Bhanu Thilak and Sri. S.R Prasanth, the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.Jacob Mathew, the
learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
2025:KER:19267
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of
the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as
fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was retired
Government servant, getting monthly pension Rs.10,562/-, but the Tribunal
fixed his monthly income at Rs.2000/-/-.The learned counsel for the insurer
would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, though the deceased was a retired Government Servant
getting a monthly pension of Rs. 10,562/- the tribunal has taken his notional
income at Rs.2000/-, which is illegal. From Ext.A10, pension book of the
deceased which is revealed that her last drawn pension was Rs.10,562/-. In
the above circumstances, the tribunal was not justified in discarding Ext.10
for fixing her notional income at Rs.2000/-. Therefore, his notional income is
liable to be fixed at Rs.10,562/-.
12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 66 years.
Therefore, no part of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future
prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 5, as held in
2025:KER:19267
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the
deceased was married 3 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3
of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the
above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.4,22,480/-
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection
and towards loss of consortium the tribunal has not awarded any amount. In
the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to
get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents, children and spouse)
are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with
an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and
funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards
loss of consortium, petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.
1,45,200/- (48,400 x3).
14. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further
compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the
decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others,
(2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and
2025:KER:19267
affection is to be deducted.
15. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has not
awarded any amount. The deceased died in this case on the same day of the
accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that, towards pain and suffering a
sum of Rs.25,000/- is to be allowed.
16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and
reasonable.
17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.6,31,980/-, as modified and recalculated above and given
in the table below, for easy reference:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Transportation to hospital Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/-
2 Damage to clothing and Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/-
articles including scooter
3 Funeral expenses etc Rs.25,000/- Rs.18150/-
4 Loss of care, love and Rs.10,000/- NIL
affection
5 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/- Rs.18150/-
6 Loss of dependency NIL Rs.4,22,480/-
7 Loss of consortium NIL Rs.1,45,200/-
8 Pain & Suffering NIL Rs.25,000/-
2025:KER:19267
Total Rs.56,000/- Rs.6,31,980/-
Enhanced Rs.5,75,980/-
18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.6,31,980/- (Rupees Six
lakhs thirty one thousand nine hundred eighty Only), less the amount already
deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from
the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within
a period of two months from today. Enhanced compensation will carry
interest @8%.
19. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall
disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal,
excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
vnk/-
