Kerala High Court
The Manager vs July George on 22 January, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 710/2017 & 2204/2019 : 1 :
2025:KER:5010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 710 OF 2017
AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.610 OF 2014 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGER, THE I.C.I.C.I LOMBARD HOUSE,414, VEER SAVARKAR
MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE,PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA - 400 025,THROUGH THE LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI
LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., KAKKANKERY ESTATE,3RD
FLOOR, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI 682 031.
BY ADV SRI. LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 JULY GEORGE, AGED 23 YEARS
W/O.SHAIJU K.A.,VATTAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MADAMKUZHI
VAYATHUR,KOLOTHATTU, KANNUR 670 706, NOW RESIDING AT
KUNJATH HOUSE,KADAYIRUPPU KARA, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE,
KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM 682 311.
2 K.K.ALIAS, AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KURIAKOSE, KUNJATH HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, IKKARANADU
NORTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM -682 311.
3 SOSAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS
W/O.K.K.ALIAS, KUNJATH HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, IKKARANADU
NORTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM - 682 311.
4 AVIYA, D/.SHAIJU K.A.,MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN, JILY GEORGE, W/O.SHAIJU K.A, AGED 23
YEARS,VATTAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MADAMKUZHI
VAYATHUR,KOLOTHATTU, KANNUR 670 706, NOW RESIDING AT
KUNJATH HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE,
KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM - 682 311.
M.A.C.A. No. 710/2017 & 2204/2019 : 2 :
2025:KER:5010
5 JOSEPH A.C., S/O.CHACKO ALUNKAL ABRAHAM, ALUNKAL HOUSE,
VENNIKULAM P.O.,PURAMUTTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLEY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
6 DAVISON JOSEPH, S/O. A.C.JOSEPH, ALUNKAL HOUSE, VENNIKULAM
P.O., PURAMUTTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLEY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT. ANEY PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2025, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NO. 2204 OF 2019, THE COURT ON
22.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 710/2017 & 2204/2019 : 3 :
2025:KER:5010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 2204 OF 2019
AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.610 OF 2014 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:
1 JULY GEORGE, W/O. LATE SHAIJU K. A. RESIDING AT VATTAMATTATHIL
HOUSE, MADAMKUZHI VAYATHUR, KOLOTHATTU, KANNUR - 670 706,
NOW RESIDING AT KUNJATH HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA,
IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 311.
2 K. K.ALIAS, S/O. KURIAKOSE RESIDING AT KUNJATH HOUSE,
KADAYIRUPPU KARA, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAKM DISTRICT - 682 311.
3 SOSAMMA,
W/O. K. K. ALIAS, RESIDING AT KUNJATH HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA,
IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 311
4 ADDL. P4 AVIYA
D/O. SHAIJU K. A., MINOR (D/B 01.12.2014) REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN, JULY GEORGE, W/O. LATE SHAIJU
K.A., RESIDING AT VATTAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MADAMKUZHI VAYATHUR,
KOLOTHATTU, KANNUR - 670 706, NOW RESIDING AT KUNJATH
HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE,
KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 311.
BY ADV. ANEY PAUL
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER
SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA - 400 025.
R1 BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2025, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.710/2017, THE COURT ON 22.01.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 710/2017 & 2204/2019 : 4 :
2025:KER:5010
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 710 of 2017 & 2204 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The above appeals are filed by the 3rd respondent insurance
company and the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 610 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moovattupuzha and they are
challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal under
various heads as not reasonable.
2. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Shaiju,
who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.06.2014. According
to the claim petitioners, the deceased was riding a motorcycle and when
he reached the place of occurrence, car driven by the 2 nd respondent in
a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby,
he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died on
18.06.2014, while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The 1 st
respondent is the owner of the car and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A15
were marked from the side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced
from the side of the respondents.
2025:KER:5010
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the
accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2 nd
respondent and respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.39,12,776/- to the claim petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence and liability
are not under challenge and the challenge is only regarding the quantum
of compensation fixed by the Tribunal under various heads. According to
the claim petitioners, the deceased was working as Manager in a
company and earning Rs.30,000/- per month as salary.
7. PW1 is the Manager of the company, where the deceased was
working and in Exhibit A10 salary certificate, it is stated that the average
monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.27,688/-. In Exhibit A10, the basic
salary is shown as Rs.3,300/- and incentive as Rs.22,676/-. The copy of
the bank statement of the deceased is marked as Exhibit A15.
8. After evaluating the evidence of PW1, Exhibit A10 and A15, the
Tribunal arrived at the finding that the deceased never received a
2025:KER:5010
monthly salary of Rs.27,688/- as shown in Exhibit A10 and therefore,
the evidence of PW1 in this regard is not at all reliable. A perusal of the
amounts credited in the salary account of the deceased for a period of
10 months prior to the occurrence would clearly show that the evidence
of PW1 and Exhibit A10 regarding the average salary is not correct. The
average of the salary and incentives credited in the account of the
deceased for a period of 10 months prior to the occurrence is
Rs.15,900/- and therefore, I find that Rs.15,900/- can be accepted as
the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the
compensation of loss of dependency.
9. The deceased was a permanent employee and was below the
age of 40 years at the time of the accident. The decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] shows that an addition of 40% of the
established income is required to be made towards future prospects,
where the deceased was below 40 years.
10. The Tribunal accepted 16 as the multiplier applicable and
deducted one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
2025:KER:5010
in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802
(SC)]. Thus, while reassessing the compensation for loss of dependency
as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.32,05,440/-
[15900 + 40% x ¾ x 12 x 16].
11. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) would show that the reasonable amount payable on
conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively and that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10%
in every three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak &
Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above
metric awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.18,150/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral
expenses and loss of estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/- each and the
petitioners will also be entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards loss of
consortium. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriram
General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat (2023 KHC Online
2025:KER:5010
7244) shows that the compensation under the heads of loss of love and
affection and loss of consortium cannot be granted to each legal
representative of the deceased and in view of the said position, the
petitioners are not entitled for a separate amount towards loss of love
and affection.
12. In conclusion, the amount of compensation, as modified as a
result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format herein
below:
Compensation Final
Sl.No Particulars awarded by the Amount
Tribunal (Rs.) Payable
1 Loss of dependency 33,55,776/- 32,05,440/-
2 Loss of estate 15,000/- 18,150/-
3 Funeral expenses 25,000/- 18,150/-
4 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 48,400/-
5 Love and affection 1,00,000/- NIL
6 Transport to hospital 10,000/- 10,000/-
7 Medical expenses 2,32,000/- 2,32,000/-
8 Pain and sufferings 75,000/- 75,000/-
Total amount Payable 39,12,776/- 36,07,140/-
13. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the
claim petitioners is determined as Rs.36,07,140/-.
2025:KER:5010
In the result, M.A.C.A. No. 2204 of 2019 is dismissed and M.A.C.A
No.710 of 2017 is allowed in part, and the claim petitioners are allowed
to recover the compensation amount of Rs.36,07,140/-(Rupees Thirty
Six Lakhs Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty only) with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date
of realization with proportionate costs from the respondents. The
respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount together
with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
