Kerala High Court

K.P.Sasikumar vs C.Veerappan on 20 February, 2025

                                                   2025:KER:16218


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/1ST PHALGUNA, 1946

                        MACA NO.290 OF 2013

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2009 IN OPMV

NO.1881     OF   2005   OF   MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL,

ALAPPUZHA

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.4

    1       K.P.SASIKUMAR,
            AGED 47 YEARS,
            S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR,
            RESIDING AT RAJAM HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O.,
            THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA.

    2       RAHUL S.KUMAR,
            AGED 21 YEARS,
            S/O.K.P.SASIKUMAR,
            RESIDING AT RAJAM HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O.,
            THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA.

    3       JAYAKUMARY @ JAYA,
            AGED 39 YEARS,
            W/O.K.P.SASIKUMAR, C/O.SMT.CHANDRAMATHIAMMA,
            VELIYATH HOUSE, MARUTHORUVATTOM P.O.,
            THANNEERMUKKOM.


            BY ADV SRI.B.PRAMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 3

    1       C.VEERAPPAN,
            S/O.CHINNA GOUNDER, HOUSE NO.7/10,
            NEIKKARAMPATTY, ARIYUR P.O.,
 MACA NO.290 OF 2013

                                2

                                                   2025:KER:16218


            NAMMAKKAL DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-637001

    2       MOHANASUNDRAM,
            S/O.MURUKESAN, HOUSE NO.V/4, NEIKKARAMPATTY,
            ARIYUR P.O., ARIYUR DESAM, NAMMAKKAL DISTRICT,
            TAMIL NADU,
            PIN-637001
    3       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
            REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
            DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA -688001


            BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU


        THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   20.02.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO.290 OF 2013

                                  3

                                                      2025:KER:16218


                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1881/2005 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha are the appellants

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 legal representatives of the

deceased Raghesh Kumar who died in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 12.09.2005. According to them, on 12.09.2005,

at about 2 p.m while the deceased was travelling in a motorcycle

having Reg.No. KL-04/P-3597 through Muvattupuzha-Ernakulam

NH 47 and when he reached at Kidachira near Kolencherry, the

lorry having Reg.No.TN-28/K-8296 driven by the 2 nd 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 the same day.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2 nd

respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending

vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was

Rs.12,00,000/-.

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 for the petitioners

consists of Exts.A1 to A22. No oral evidence was adduced by the

respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the

Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-.

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. MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

9. Heard Sri.B.Pramod, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.P.K Manojkumar,

the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

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 them, the deceased was a final year B.Sc Nursing

student, and hence prayed for fixing his notional income at

Rs.15000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income

at Rs.3000/-.

11. The deceased was a final year BSc. Nursing

student and the notional income claimed was Rs.15000/-.

However, the Tribunal fixed at the same at 3,000/-. In the light of

the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional

income of a coolie, during the year 2005 will come to Rs.5,000/-.

In the decision in Ramakrishnapillai K & Others v. New India MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

Assurance company Ltd. [2015 (3) KLJ 750], in an accident that

occurred in the year 2006, this court has fixed the notional income

of a 4th Semester B.Tech student at Rs.12,000/-. In National

Insurance Co.Ltd. Chennai v.Fathimath Zuhara @ Zuhra

Razak and Another [2016 KHC 691] this court has fixed as the

notional income of a 2nd year Engineering student during the year

2005 at Rs.12000/-.

12. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner

could not produce any decisions showing the notional income of a

Bsc Nursing student during the relevant period. Therefore,

considering the above facts, I hold that notional income of the

deceased final year Bsc. student can be fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 20

years. Therefore, 40% 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 18, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

was a bachelor who left behind 2 dependants, towards personal and

living expense, 1/2 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.15,12,000/-.

14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- towards pain

and suffering, Rs.3000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2000/-

towards medical and other incidental expenses and Rs.15,000/-

towards love and affection. Rs.3000/- towards Ambulance charge.

In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants

are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.18150/- towards loss of

estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses, and each dependent

is entitled to get a sum of Rs.48400/- 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 are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 96,800/-

(48,400 x2).

15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

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 affection is to be

deducted.

16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/-, which according to the learned

counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. Due to the impact

of the injuries sustained in the accident the deceased died on the

date of accident itself. Considering the facts, I hold that the

compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lesser

side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded

on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads

appears to be just and reasonable.

18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled

to get a total compensation of Rs.16,75,100/-, as modified and

recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

Sl.

              Head of Claim               Amount            Amount
No.
                                       awarded by      Awarded in
                                       Tribunal (in         Appeal
                                           Rs.)             (in Rs.)

1     Compensation           for 3,12,000/-           15,12,000/-
      pecuniary loss caused to
      the petitioners due to the
      death of Raghesh Kumar
2     Compensation for loss of 15,000/-               Nil
      love and affection
3     Compensation for pain and 5000/-                25,000/-
      suffering
4     Medical       and       other 2000/-            2000/-
      incidental expenses
5     Ambulance charge              3000/-            3000/-
6     Funeral expenses              3000/-            18,150/-
7     Loss of estate                Nil               18,150/-
8     Loss of consortium            Nil               96,800/-
                                                      (48400x2)
      Total                         3,40,000/-        16,75,100/-

      Amount Enhanced               13,35,100/-

19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and

the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of

Rs.16,75,100/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand and MACA NO.290 OF 2013

2025:KER:16218

Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along

with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till

realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 386 days, the

period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs,

within a period of two months from today.

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,