Kerala High Court
Viju K.N vs Sujith K.M on 28 February, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 40/2022 :1:
2025:KER:16528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 40 OF 2022
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.08.2021 IN OP(MV) NO.512 OF 2019 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 VIJU K.N.,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.NANU, KALLUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THUDIMARAM, RANDAMKADAVU
(PO), IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 BHAGYA LAKSHMI (MINOR),
AGED 8 YEARS
D/O.VIJU.K.N., KALLUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THUDIMARAM,
RANDAMKADAVU (PO), IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER VIJU.K.N., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NANU,
KALLUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THUDIMARAM, RANDAMKADAVU (PO),
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 ABHISHEK.K.V., (MINOR),
AGED 6 YEARS
S/O.VIJU.K.N., KALLUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THUDIMARAM,
RANDAMKADAVU (PO), IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER VIJU.K.N., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NANU,
KALLUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THUDIMARAM, RANDAMKADAVU (PO),
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 BHAVANI,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.RAMAKRISHNAPILLAI, NJALLAYIL HOUSE, MUNDAYAMPARAMBA
(PO), KAMBANI NIRATHU, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI. PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
M.A.C.A. No. 40/2022 :2:
2025:KER:16528
SRI. PREMANAND E.
SRI. M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR
SRI. K.V.SREERAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUJITH K.M.,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN, KALAPPAAMBIL HOUSE, MELMURINGODI (PO),
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 PRABHAKARAN,
S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, MAVILA HOUSE, MELMURINGODI (PO), IRITTY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, KALATHIL BUILDING, NEAR MAHE CHURCH, MAIN ROAD,
MAHE, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,
36/707, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, OPP. MAHARAJAS COLLEGE
GROUND, KOCHI, KERALA-682 011.
R3 BY SRI. M.M.IRSHAD MOOPPAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.02.2025, THE COURT ON 28.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 40/2022 :3:
2025:KER:16528
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 40 of 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 512 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Smitha N.
R., who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners,
on 31.12.2018, while the deceased was riding a scooter, bus driven by
the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the
scooter and thereby, she fell down and sustained serious injuries and
subsequently, succumbed to her injuries on the same day. The 2 nd
respondent is the owner of the bus and the 3 rd respondent is the
insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked from the
side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced from the side of the
respondents.
2025:KER:16528
4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred
because of the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent and
respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 21,13,500/- to the
petitioners.
5. Heard Sri. Phijo Pradeesh, the learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri. M. M. Irshad Moopan, the learned counsel for the
respondent insurance company.
6. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 36 years
and earning Rs.10,000/- per month from her occupation as a collection
agent in a chitty company. Even though, the Tribunal recorded a finding
that Exhibit A6 salary certificate produced to the prove the monthly
salary of Rs.10,000/- is not duly proved by examining the person who
issued the same, by following the principles laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and
Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
[(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027], the Tribunal fixed
2025:KER:16528
Rs.10,000/- as notional income of the deceased for the purpose of
calculating the compensation and I find no reason to interfere with the
said finding of the Tribunal.
7. As per the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16
SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571], the Tribunal
made an addition of 40% of the established income towards future
prospects. The Tribunal accepted 15 as the multiplier applicable and
deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased by following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802
(SC)] and the learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any
argument challenging the said finding of the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal followed the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) for awarding
compensation on conventional heads and therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the compensation fixed by the Tribunal under conventional
heads. Even though no evidence is adduced, the Tribunal granted
2025:KER:16528
Rs.3,000/- towards transport to hospital and Rs.1,500/- towards
damage to clothing and articles. The Tribunal has also awarded
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings of the deceased and I find that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads are just and
reasonable and there is no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find that this appeal is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
