Kerala High Court
Aisha Ramsi vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... on 25 February, 2025
2025:KER:23537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.07.2018 IN OPMV NO.463 OF 2016 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS:
1 AISHA RAMSI,
AGED 24 YEARS
W/O SALAHUDEEN, ARACKAL HOUSE,
VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY.
2 MUHAMMEDNIHAL,
AGED 5 YEARS
S/O.SALAHUDEEN, (MINOR), DATED OF BIRTH 17.04.2010,
ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY REP. BY
MOTHER AISHA RAMSI, W/O.SALAHUDEEN ARACKAL HOUSE,
VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY.
3 NEBHAN, (MINOR),
AGED 2 YEARS
S/O.SALAHUDEEN, DATED OF BIRTH 29.06.2013,
ARACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKKATTUKUNNU,
PONJASSERY REP. BY MOTHER AISHA RAMSI,
W/O.SALAHUDEEN ARACKAL HOUSE,
VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY.
4 ZACHARIYAMOULAVI,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMEDMOULAVI, ARACKAL HOUSE,
VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY,
5 RASHEEDA,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.ZACHARIYAMOULAVI, ARACKAL HOUSE,
VETTIKKATTUKUNNU, PONJASSERY,
BY ADV ELSON SIMON
MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018 2
2025:KER:23537
RESPONDENTS:
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,
ATP TOWERS, NO-12-A, 5TH FLOOR, BYE PASS ROAD,
MADURAI 625 010.
BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER- SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3641 OF 2018 3
2025:KER:23537
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.463/ 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is 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 wife, children and parents of the deceased
Salahudheen, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
07.03.2016. According to them, on 07.03.2016, at about 7.30 p.m., while the
deceased was riding a motorcycle, a tipper lorry bearing reg. No. KL-17/A-
3446 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him
down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he
succumbed to the injuries, on 08.03.2016, while under treatment.
3. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner
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
offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was
2025:KER:23537
Rs.61,70,000/-(limited to 50,00,000)
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 A14 and B1.
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.21,48,405/- 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.Elson Simon, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K Panicker, 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
2025:KER:23537
learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as
fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was running a driving
school. In order to prove the same they have examined PW1. PW1 deposed
that he was conducting a driving school in partnership with the deceased for
about 6 years. The petitioners could not produce any documents to prove the
existence of such a partnership. However from the evidence of PW1 it is
revealed that the deceased was running a driving school. At the same time,
there is no evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased.
11. Since, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a
coolie, during the year 2016 will come to Rs.10500/-, considering the fact that
the deceased was conducting a driving school, his notional income is fixed at
Rs.11500/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency.
12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 29 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 17, as held in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the
2025:KER:23537
deceased was married who left behind 5 dependents, towards personal and
living expense, 1/4 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.24,63,300/-
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium
and Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affection. 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 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.2,42,000/- (48,400 x 5).
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
affection is to be deducted.
2025:KER:23537
15. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date
next day after the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the
compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and
hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-
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.28,52,205/-, 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 Loss of dependency Rs.19,27,800/- Rs.24,63,300/-
2 Expenses for transport Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
3 Damage to clothes Rs.1000/- Rs.1000/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18150/-
5 Love and affection Rs.50,000/- NIL
6 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/-
7 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18150/-
8 Treatment expenses Rs.79,605/- Rs.79,605/-
9 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.2,42,000/-
Total Rs.21,48,405/- Rs.28,52,205/-
2025:KER:23537
Enhanced Rs.7,03,800/-
18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.28,52,205/- (Rupees
Twenty eight lakhs fifty two thousand two hundred and five Only), less the
amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, 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, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
vnk/-
