Kerala High Court
Kanchana vs Prasanthan K on 13 February, 2025
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/24TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.07.2017 IN OP(MV)
NO.452/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KANCHANA
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.LATE VIKRAMAN,
PARAKKADAVIL HOUSE, VELIMANAM, ARALAM,
VEERPAD P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 VIPIN P.V.
S/O.LATE VIKRAMAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
PARAKKADAVIL HOUSE, VELIMANAM, ARALAM,
VEERPAD P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 VINOOP P.V.
S/O.LATE VIKRAMAN, AGED 27 YEARS,
PARAKKADAVIL HOUSE, VELIMANAM, ARALAM,
VEERPAD P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
SWARNA THOMAS
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRASANTHAN K.
S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR E.P., AGED 40 YEARS,
PRAMOD NILAYAM, VANKULAM, KUTTIYATOOR P.O.,
THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT (DRIVER).
2 RAVEENDRAN M.
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RANJINI SADANAM,
P.O.PORORA, MANNUR, MATTANNUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT (OWNER).
3 M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD,
KANNUR (INSURER)
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.S.NAJEEB
SMT. DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants in O.P.(MV)
No.452/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thalassery, challenging the inadequacy of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The claimants, three in number, are the legal heirs
of the deceased named Sri.Vikraman, who died in a motor
accident that occurred on 15.10.2015.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that on
15.10.2015, while the deceased Vikraman was travelling in an
autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-58-J-2773 and when
the said autorickshaw reached at a place called Uthiyur, a bus
bearing registration No. KL-58-G-3342 which came from the
opposite direction driven by the first respondent, in a rash and
negligent manner hit on the autorickshaw in which Vikraman
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
was travelling causing severe injuries to him. Immediately
after the accident, though the injured Vikraman was taken to
the Government Hospital, Kannur, he succumbed to the
injuries while undergoing treatment there.
4. The owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as
the 2nd respondent and the driver was arrayed as 1st
respondent in the petition. Whereas, the insurer of the bus
was arrayed as 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent insurer
filed written statement, mainly contesting the quantum of
compensation claimed, despite admitting the insurance
coverage for the bus involved in the accident. The evidence in
this case consists of Exts. A1 to A4 from the side of the
claimants. From the side of the 3rd respondent, no evidence,
whatsoever, has been adduced.
5. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that
the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
of the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-58-G-3342 and
being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay
the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at
Rs.7,03,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs.
Aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded, the
petitioners came up with this appeal.
6. Heard Smt.Swarna Thomas, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri.N. S. Najeeb, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable
that the main dispute revolves around is with respect to the
quantum of compensation awarded. The learned Counsel for
the appellants urged that the compensation awarded under
various heads, especially under the head of loss of
dependency, is inadequate and not in consonance with the
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
hardships and the loss sustained to the deceased's bereaved
family. The learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal
erred in considering the actual age of the deceased and took
the age of the deceased as 62, though his actual age was only
60 at the time of the accident. It is further urged that the
deceased was a rubber tapper by profession, earning a
monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of the accident.
But without taking note of the said fact, the Tribunal fixed the
income notionally at Rs. 8,000/-. According to the learned
counsel, the income assessed by the Tribunal is too meager
and not justifiable.
8. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent,
Insurance Company submitted that the age considered by the
Tribunal is absolutely correct and such an age was reckoned
on the strength of available records, and there is nothing to
interfere with. However, he fairly submitted that, in
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
calculating the loss of dependency, the income of the
deceased taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side,
particularly when viewed on the basis of the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
[(2011) 13 SCC 236]
9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for
the purpose of determining compensation under the head of
loss of dependency, the Tribunal had assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Though in the petition,
it is claimed that the deceased was a rubber tapper by
profession and was earning a monthly income of
Rs. 25,000/-, no evidence, whatsoever, is seen produced from
the side of the petitioners to prove the actual income and
occupation of the deceased. However, while passing the
award it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to ensure that the
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
compensation awarded under each head is just, equitable, fair
and reasonable. It is an admitted fact that the incident in this
case occurred in the year 2015. Therefore, the Tribunal ought
to have taken a notional income of Rs. 10,000/- per month
applying the principles of law laid down in Ramachandrappa
(supra). Though the learned counsel for the petitioners had
raised some grievance regarding the age of the deceased
taken by the Tribunal, no evidence, whatsoever, is seen
produced from the side of the petitioners to prove that the
deceased was aged only 60 at the time of the accident as
claimed in the petition. On the other hand, the available
records show that he was aged 62 years at the time of the
accident. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is
warranted with respect to the finding of the learned Tribunal
regarding the age of the deceased. As the age of the
deceased is established to be 62 at the time of the accident,
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
the multiplier applicable in this case is 7, as per the decision
in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2)
KLT 802 (SC)],. In view of that matter, the compensation
that has to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency
would come to Rs.8,40,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty
Thousand only) [Rs.10,000 x 12 x 7]. As it is established from
the evidence that the deceased has three dependents, 1/3rd of
the said amount has to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. After deducting the said amount, the total amount
awardable under the head of loss of dependency is
Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Only)
(Rs.8,40,000 - Rs.2,80,000). Already an amount of
Rs.4,48,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of
dependency. Therefore, the additional compensation for
which the claimants are entitled under the head of loss of
dependency will come to Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
Twelve Thousand only) (Rs. 5,60,000 - Rs. 4,48,000)
10. The learned counsel for the appellant urged for
awarding a reasonable amount under the head of pain and
sufferings as well. While considering the question of whether
any amount has to be awarded under the said head, it is to be
noted that it is not a case of instantaneous death, rather the
injured succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in
the hospital though on the same day of the accident. So the
pain and sufferings endured by the deceased before his death
cannot be overlooked. Considering the same, I am inclined to
grant an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the head of pain and
sufferings.
11. Under the head of funeral expenses an amount of
Rs.25,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the
decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662], the petitioners are entitled only
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
for an amount of Rs.15,000/-, under the head of funeral
expenses. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be
deducted from the amount already awarded under the said
head.
12. Similarly, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is seen
awarded under the head of loss of estate. In view of the law
laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Tribunal ought to
have awarded only an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the said
head also. Hence an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be
deducted from the amount already awarded under the said
head. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and
affection is liable to be interfered with, as such an amount
could not have been legally awarded under the said head, as
the claimants are entitled to get compensation under the head
of loss of consortium. I am also concurring with the
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in this
regard. In view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), no
amount is awardable under the head of love and affection,
particularly when compensation is awarded under the head of
loss of consortium. In the case at hand, the claimants are
none other than the wife and children of the deceased.
Therefore, they are legally entitled to compensation of Rs.
40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. Already
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is seen awarded under the said
head by the Tribunal. Hence under the head of loss of
consortium, the petitioners are found entitled to get an
additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand Only) (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs. 1,00,000). Resultantly, the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head of love and
affection has to be deducted from the total compensation
awarded.
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
13. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-
+ Rs.1,00,000/-) has to be deducted from the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.1,47,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Only)
(Rs.1,12,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) has to be added
towards the total compensation awarded.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings,
the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a
further amount of Rs. 27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven
Thousand only) (Rs.1,47,000 - Rs.1,20,000) with interest at
the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, after
deducting interest for a period of 103 days, i.e., the period of
delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court
on 03.01.2022 in C.M.Appln.No.239/2018. The 3rd respondent
2025:KER:12681
MACA NO. 239 OF 2018
insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced
compensation with interest before the tribunal with
proportionate costs within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
DCS
