Kerala High Court
Johnson.A vs The Manager, New India Assurance ... on 13 February, 2025
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 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. 461 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.08.2017 IN OP(MV)
NO.2152 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JOHNSON.A
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY,
RESIDING AT SHIBIN SADANAM, RAJAGIRI,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM - 690 521.
2 VALSALA
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. JOHNSON,
RESIDING AT SHIBIN SADANAM, RAJAGIRI,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM - 690 521.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.RENY ANTO
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
2
RESPONDENTS/THIRD RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY,
KOTTIYAM
1ST FLOOR SAS COMPLEX, KANNANALLOOR ROAD,
NEAR BUS STOP KOTTIYAM, KERALA, INDIA - 691 571,
REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
LAL K. JOSEPH
SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997)
ANZIL SALIM(K/000447/2018)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P.(MV)
No.2152/2015 challenging the inadequacy of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam.
2. The claimants two in number are the legal heirs of
the deceased named Sri.Jaison, who died in a motor accident
that occurred on 05.06.2015.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that on
05.06.2015, while the deceased Jaison was riding a
motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-24-8632 through
Sasthamcotta - Padappakkara road, a private bus bearing
Registration No.KL-02-AC-9797 driven by the first respondent
in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle ridden
by Jaison. Due to the impact of the hit, Jaison fell down to the
road causing him severe injuries. Though the injured was
rushed to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries later while
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
undergoing treatment.
4. The driver and owner of the offending bus were
arrayed as the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively and the
Insurer was arrayed as 3rd respondent in the petition. 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 A9 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 was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the first respondent, the driver of the bus bearing
Reg.No.KL-02-AC-9797 and being the insurer, the 3rd
respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The
quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.9,66,000/-, with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
till realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the
compensation amount awarded, the petitioners came up with
this appeal.
6. Heard Sri. P. Pratheesh, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri.Lal K.Jospeh, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable
that the sole dispute revolves around in this appeal is with
respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under various heads. The main challenge raised from
the side of the appellant is regarding the inadequacy of
compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency.
A perusal of the impugned award indicates that for the
purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss
of dependency, the Tribunal has assessed an amount of
Rs.6,000/-, as the monthly income of the deceased. After
adding 50% towards the future prospects, the monthly
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.9,000/- The learned
counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the
income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side when
compared with the occupation of the deceased. According to
the learned counsel, the deceased was a fisherman by
profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-
per month. While considering the said contention, it is to be
noted that though the petitioners had succeeded in producing
documents to substantiate the contention regarding the
occupation of the deceased, no materials, whatsoever, are
seen produced from the side of the petitioners to prove the
deceased's actual income. Anyhow, it is an accident of the
year 2015. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-, in view of the
decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13
SCC 236]. Furthermore, in view of the decision in National
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT
662], an addition to the income towards future prospects has
to be made. As the deceased was not a permanent employee
or not working in a Government sector, 40% of addition has to
be made to the income towards future prospects. Hence, the
income of the deceased can be reasonably and legally
assessed at Rs. 14,000/-. The age of the deceased at the time
of the accident was 26 and applying the principle laid down in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2)
KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier to be reckoned is 17.
Consequently, the amount of compensation awardable under
the head of loss of dependency will come to Rs. 28,56,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Only)
[Rs.14,000/- x 17 x 12]. As the deceased was a bachelor,
50% 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
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
Rs.14,28,000/-.(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Eight
Thousand Only). After deducting the already awarded amount
of Rs.9,18,000/-, under the head of loss of dependency, the
additional compensation for which the petitioners are entitled
under the head of loss of dependency will come to
Rs. 5,10,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Ten Thousand only)
(Rs. 14,28,000 - Rs. 9,18,000).
8. The petitioners herein are none other than the
parents of the deceased. Therefore, they are entitled to get
compensation under the head of loss of consortium also. The
tribunal omitted to award any amount under the said head as
compensation. Therefore, I am of the considered view that an
amount of Rs. 40,000/- each has to be awarded to the
petitioners as compensation under the head of loss of
consortium. Hence an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty
Thousand only) is awarded under the head of loss of
consortium.
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
9. Under the head of funeral expenses, an amount of
Rs.25,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal. The said
amount is exorbitant in view of the law laid down in Pranay
Sethi (supra). Only an amount of Rs. 15,000/- can be
awarded under the said head and hence, Rs.10,000/- (Rupess
Ten Thousand only) has to be deducted from the amount
already awarded under the said head.
10. Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is seen awarded
under the head of loss of estate. The said amount is on the
lower side. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra), the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of
Rs.15,000/- under the said head also. Hence, an amount of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) has to be added as
additional compensation under the said head.
11. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) has to be deducted from the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and Rs. 6,00,000/-
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
(Rupees Six Lakhs Only) (Rs.5,10,000/- + Rs.80,000/- +
Rs.10,000/-) 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. 5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and
Ninety Thousand only) (Rs.6,00,000 - Rs.10,000) with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit. The respondent 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
2025:KER:13126
MACA NO. 461 OF 2018
DCS
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE COPY OF THE G.O(ORD)NO.56/2017/FIN
DT.28.4.2017
Annexure A2 THE COPY OF THE G.O(P)NO. 16/2021/LBR
DT.27.01.2021
