Kerala High Court
Ramachandran vs United India Insurance Company on 15 January, 2025
2025:KER:2725
MACA No.272/2023
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 25TH POUSHA, 1946
MACA NO. 272 OF 2023
OPMV NO.910 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 69 YEARS
S/O KESHAVAN,BLOCK NO 275,NEDUMKANDAM.P.O,PARATHODU
VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685553
2 RAJI UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O UNNIKRISHNAN,
THANDAPPILLIL HOUSE,CHEMMANNAR .P.O,CHEMMANNAR, PIN -
685554
3 RAKHY ARUN, AGED 36 YEARS, W/OARUNKUMAR,KOLLAPPILLIL
HOUSE,NEDUMKANDAM.P.O,KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, PIN - 685553
4 REMYA RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O RAMACHANDRAN,
BLOCK NO .275,NEDUMKANDAM.P.O,PARATHODU VILLAGE,IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685553
BY ADVS. MATHEWS K.PHILIP
T.MANASY
MINISHA K DAS
RESPONDENTS/3RD RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,DIVISIONAL OFFICE,MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN
- 686661
BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 25.11.2024, THE COURT ON 15.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:2725
MACA No.272/2023
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No. 910
of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thodupuzha. The respondent herein was the third respondent before
the tribunal.
2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on
14.04.2015, while the deceased was travelling in a bus bearing
Reg.No.KL-35B 1896 through a public road, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-
73D 7626 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent
manner, hit against the bus, whereby the deceased sustained fatal
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal
heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total
compensation of ₹18,00,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the
tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting
the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability
and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to
A13 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. No evidence
was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the
2025:KER:2725
..3..
pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on
account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and
awarded a sum of ₹9,33,238/- as compensation under different heads
against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have
come up in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims
enhancement under the following heads:
5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and
though the appellants claimed that the deceased was an agriculturist
involved in cow farming and was earning ₹20,000/- per month, the
tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income only at ₹8,000/-. Per
contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that no
evidence was adduced to prove that the deceased was an agriculturist
involved in cow farming and that the monthly income notionally fixed
by the tribunal is just and reasonable. Though in the claim petition, the
claimants claimed ₹20,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased,
admittedly, no evidence was adduced to prove the same. In such
2025:KER:2725
..4..
circumstances, the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236],
wherein the income of a coolie is notionally fixed, is followed to fix the
notional monthly income of the injured. Here, the monthly income of
the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident
that occurred in 2015, is fixed by the tribunal only at ₹8,000/-.
Therefore, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem
it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the deceased at
₹10,000/-.
5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the notional monthly
income of the deceased is refixed at ₹10,000/-, compensation towards
loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was aged 55
years at the time of the accident. Thus, after adding 10% of the
notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived
at ₹11,000/- (10000 + 1000). The learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the deceased was survived by her husband and her
three daughters aged 37, 30 and 28 years, however, the tribunal had
deducted one half of the income towards personal expenses, holding
that the husband was the only dependent of the deceased. The learned
counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol [2021 (5) KLT 74], wherein this Court
2025:KER:2725
..5..
held that even if dependency is a relevant criterion to claim
compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial
dependency is the 'ark of the covenant'. It was further held that
dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical
dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so
on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money. Here,
in this case, it is clear that appellants 2 to 4, being the married
daughters of the deceased Leelamani, were dependent on her, not only
financially, but also physically, emotionally, psychologically and so on.
The bond between a mother and a daughter is eternal. No matter how
old she may be, the daughters need their mother lifelong and it cannot
be said that once they are given in marriage, they are not dependent on
their parents. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer
vehemently opposed the decision in Shalumol (supra). However, the
said decision has become final and remains unchallenged. Hence, I find
that the deduction of one half of the income by the tribunal is incorrect
and the deduction to be made towards personal expenses is one fourth,
the legal heirs being four in number. Accordingly, following the
judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT
662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT
802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of
₹10,89,000/- (11000 x 12 x 11 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency.
2025:KER:2725
..6..
Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹5,08,200/- under this
head.
6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of
compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records
available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with
the same since it appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the
impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified Total
claimed awarded in appeal compensation
(in ₹) by the (in ₹) (in ₹)
tribunal
(in ₹)
1. Transportation 75000 25000 25000
charges
2. Extra nourishment 100000 15000 15000
3. Bystander 50000 25000 25000
expenses
4. Medical expenses 500000 76438 76438
5. Damages to 2000 1000 1000
clothing and
articles
6. Funeral expenses 25000 15000 15000
7. Pain and suffering 75000 20000 20000
8. Loss of love and 400000 160000 160000
affection and loss
of consortium
9. Loss of 1000000 580800 508200 1089000
dependency
10. Loss of estate 200000 15000 15000
Total 2427000 933238 508200 1441438
limited
to
1800000
2025:KER:2725
..7..
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants
are awarded an additional compensation of ₹5,08,200/- (Rupees five
lakh eight thousand and two hundred only) over and above the
compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The
respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest
and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. The appellants shall furnish copies of
the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent
insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance
company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to
furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to
deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being
made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants at the
earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the
enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of
228 days in filing the appeal.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
