Kerala High Court
Safiya A vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd, ... on 27 January, 2025
2025:KER:6706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.11.2014 IN OPMV NO.721 OF 2012 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 SAFIYA A., AGED 41 YEARS
W/O.LATE NAZAR, RESIDING AT ANCHILLATH HOUSE,
EAST ELERI VILLAGE, P.O.KADUMENI,
VIA.CHERUPUZHA,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 SHAJAHAN A., AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.LATE NAZAR, RESIDING AT ANCHILLATH HOUSE,
EAST ELERI VILLAGE, P.O.KADUMENI,
VIA.CHERUPUZHA,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3 ISHAK A., AGED 19 YEARS
S/O.LATE NAZAR, RESIDING AT ANCHILLATH HOUSE,
EAST ELERI VILLAGE, P.O.KADUMENI,
VIA.CHERUPUZHA,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
4 SAHALATH A, AGED 12 YEARS
(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SAFIYA,
RESIDING AT ANCHILLATH HOUSE, EAST ELERI VILLAGE,
P.O.KADUMENI, VIA.CHERUPUZHA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 :-
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.
BY ADV SMT.JESSY GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
2
2025:KER:6706
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.721/2012 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kasargod, are 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 legal representatives of the deceased by name Shakkir, who
died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.09.2011. According to
them, on 28.09.2011 at about 12.45 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a
TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No.KL/59/D/8616 through Karivellur
to Payyanur, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL/15/6518 driven by the
2nd respondent came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner, hit
against the vehicles 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 2nd respondent is the driver
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
Rs.6,00,000/-.
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
2025:KER:6706
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 documentary evidence
Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the petitioners. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of
the respondents.
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.5,46,800/-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.M.V.Amaresan, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, and Smt.Jessy George, 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
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
2025:KER:6706
the Tribunal. According to them, the deceased was aged 18 years on the date of
accident. He was a plus two student. The learned counsel for the petitioners
relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mekala v. Malathi
M and Another [2014 (11) SCC 178] would argue that in the above case, the
notional income of a 11th standard student during the year 2005 was fixed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court at Rs.10,000/- and hence, the notional income of the
deceased may be fixed at least at Rs.10,000/-. As per the dictum laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manger, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], even the notional income of
a coolie during the year 2011 will come to Rs.8,000/-. In the above
circumstances, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
11. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 18 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 was a bachelor who left behind 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/-.
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
2025:KER:6706
12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.50,000/- towards love and
affection. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head loss of
consortium. 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 each dependent is entitled to get a
sum of Rs.40,000/- 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, the 1st
petitioner/ mother is entitled to get a sum of Rs.48,400/-.
13. 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.
14. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the
lower side. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded
towards pain and suffering is on the lesser side, and hence, it is enhanced to
Rs.25,000/-.
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
2025:KER:6706
15. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as
the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
16. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.16,27,700/-, as modified and recalculated above and given
in the table below, for easy reference.
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded
Tribunal (in Rs.) in Appeal
(in Rs.)
1 Transportation Expenses 5000 5000
2 Damage to clothing 1000 1000
3 Funeral expenses 10000 18150
4 Pain and suffering 10000 25000
5 Love and affection 50000 Nil
6 Loss of estate 10000 18150
7 Loss of consortium Nil 48400
8 Compensation for loss of 4,60,800 15,12,000
dependency
Total 546800 16,27,700
Enhanced/reduced 1080900
17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,27,700/- (Rupees Sixteen
Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Only), less the amount already
deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the
petition till realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months
MACA NO. 922 OF 2015
2025:KER:6706
from today.
18. 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
SMA
