Kerala High Court
Janu vs Sathyan on 29 January, 2025
MACA No.1314 of 2019
1
2025:KER:6871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1314 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.07.2018 IN OPMV NO.740 OF 2016
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VATAKARA.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :
1 JANU,
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE KANDAN,
POOKKOOTTUCHALIL, HOUSE,
CHANGAROTH PERUVANAMUZHI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 528.
2 SEETHA,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANDAN,
POOKKOOTTUCHALIL, HOUSE,
CHEMBANODA PERUVANAMUZHI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 528.
3 BIJU KUMAR,
AGED 33 YEARS. D/O.LATE KANDAN,
POOKKOOTTUCHALIL, HOUSE,
CHEMBANODA PERUVANAMUZHI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 528.
BY ADVS.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL & SHRI.SHAMEM M.S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 SATHYAN,
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS APPELLANT,
CHERIYAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.PERAMBRA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 525.
MACA No.1314 of 2019
2
2025:KER:6871
2 SANDEEP P.P.,
PADINCHARATH HOUSE,
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS APPELLANT,
P.O.PERAMBRA, KALLODE, KOYILANDY THALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 525.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PERAMBRA (760 606) NO.P.P.XIII/3400,
1ST FLOOR, ALANKAR ARCADE,
CALICUT ROAD- 673 525.
R3 BY ADVS.
AJEESH EMMANUEL
TIJIMOL VARGHESE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 28.01.2025, THE COURT ON 29-01-2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1314 of 2019
3
2025:KER:6871
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
MACA No.1314 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025.
J U D G M E N T
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P
(MV) No. 740 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara and they are
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal under various heads as inadequate.
2. The appellants are the legal heirs of
the deceased Kandan, who died in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 8-5-2016. According to the
petitioners while the deceased was walking through
the side of the road, motorcycle ridden by the 2nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to
hit the deceased and thereby he sustained serious
injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries
on 8-6-2016.
2025:KER:6871
3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were
marked from the side of the petitioners and Ext.B1
marked from the side of the 3rd respondent.
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.6,11,700/- to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the
records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants
argued that the Tribunal fixed the notional income
of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and the same
is on the lower side. According to the appellants
the deceased was aged 60 years and was working as a
coolie and earning Rs.750/- per day.
7. The decision of the Hon'ble 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
2025:KER:6871
Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027]
shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the
monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed
as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in
the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the
monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/-
each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased
is calculated by adopting the above principle, it
will come to Rs.10,500/-. Therefore, considering the
facts and circumstances, I find that the monthly
income of the deceased at the time of the accident
can be fixed as Rs.10,500/-.
8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi
[(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4
SCC 571] shows that the benefit of future prospects
should not be confined only to those who have a
permanent job and would extend to self-employed
2025:KER:6871
individuals and in case of a self-employed person,
an addition of 10% of the established income should
be made where the age of the victim at the time of
the accident was between 50 to 60 years.
9. The Tribunal accepted 9 as the
multiplier applicable. The claim petitioners are the
wife and children of the deceased and the learned
counsel for the appellants pointed out that the
Tribunal deducted 50% of the income towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased and as
per the principles laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2010 (2)
KLT 802 (SC)], only 1/3rd can be deducted in this
case towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased. Thus while reassessing the compensation for
loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the
amount would come to Rs.8,31,600/- [(10,500 + 10%) x
2025:KER:6871
2/3 x 12 x 9).
10. 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
2025:KER:6871
in Shriram General Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat
(2023 KHC Online 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.
11. In conclusion, the enhanced amount of
compensation, as modified as a result of the above
discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format
herein below :
Sl. Particulars Compensation awarded Final Amount
No by the Tribunal (Rs.) Payable (Rs.)
1 Compensation for loss 415800 831600
of dependency
2 Transport to hospital 5000 5000
3 Damage to clothings 1000 1000
4 Pain and sufferings 25000 25000
5 Loss of love & 50000 Nil
affection
6 Funeral Expenses 15000 18150
7 Loss of Consortium 40000 48400
8 Loss of Estate 15000 18150
2025:KER:6871
9 Treatment and medical 17888 17888
expenses
10 Extra nourishment & 27000 27000
bystander
Total Amount Payable 611688 992188
In the result, this appeal is allowed, and
the appellants/petitioners are allowed to recover
the compensation amount of Rs.9,92,188/- (Rupees
Nine Lakh Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred and Eighty
Eight Only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of the claim petition till the date of
realization with proportionate costs from the
respondents. The third 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.
amk
