Kerala High Court
K.C.Abraham vs Mahesh Mohan on 30 January, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 1016/2019 :1:
2025:KER:7302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1016 OF 2019
AWARD DATED 06.07.2018 IN O.P(MV) NO.464 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV/ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 K.C.ABRAHAM, S/O.K.A.CHERIAN, KARUVELIL PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE,
MANJADI P.O., THIRUVALLA.
2 SANTHAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O.K.C.ABRAHAM, KARUVELIL PUTHEN
PURAYIL HOUSE, MANJADI P.O., THIRUVALLA.
3 SONIA SELVA, W/O.SATHISH SELVA, KARUVELIL PUTHEN PURAYIL
HOUSE, MANJADI P.O., THIRUVALLA.
4 SHEEBA SARA ABRAHAM, W/O.SHERIN MATHEW, KARUVELIL PUTHEN
PURAYIL HOUSE, MANJADI P.O., THIRUVALLA.
BY ADVS.
SUSANTH SHAJI
V.V.SHAJI(S-1400)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHESH MOHAN, S/O.MOHAN, PANNIMALA HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O.,
MALLAPPALLY- 689 588.
2 P.SREEKANDAN NAIR, CHAMPAKKARA MOTORS, CHAMPAKARA P.O.,
KARUKACHAL, CHANGANACHERRY- 686 540.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KHAISE
BUILDING, OPPO.BENZIGAR HOSPITAL, KOLLAM- 691 001.
BY ADVS.
R2 BY SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
R3 BY SRI. LAL K JOSEPH
SRI. SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997)
SRI. ANZIL SALIM(K/000447/2018)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON 30.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 1016/2019 :2:
2025:KER:7302
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.1016 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2025.
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the petitioners in O.P. (M.V) No. 464 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta and they are
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under various heads as inadequate.
2. Petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Sunil Cherian
Abraham, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.02.2014.
According to the petitioners, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle,
bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused
to hit the motorcycle and thereby, the deceased fell down and sustained
serious injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries. The 2 nd
respondent is the owner of the vehicle and 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked from the
side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced from the side of the
respondents.
2025:KER:7302
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.14,45,050/- to the claim petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
deceased was working as a Sales Manager and earning Rs.12,000/- per
month and the Tribunal, without considering Exhibits A11 to A17, fixed a
notional income of Rs.10,000/- per month and the same is on the lower
side. Exhibits A11 and A12 would show the marks obtained by the
deceased in the Secondary School Examination and Senior School
Certificate Examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education.
Exhibit A13 is a Certificate of Academic Excellence awarded to the
deceased. Exhibit A14 is a course completion certificate. The B. Com
degree certificate of the deceased is marked as Exhibit A15. Exhibit A16
is a certificate in the name of the deceased for obtaining Postgraduate
Diploma in Business Administration. Exhibit A17 letter dated 11.10.2013
shows that Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited has offered the
post of Trainee Sales Manager to the deceased.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to
Annexusre A of Exhibit A17 and pointed out that the deceased was
offered a fixed salary of Rs.12,000/- per month for the post of Trainee
2025:KER:7302
Sales Manager. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance
company argued that the petitioners have not produced any document
to prove that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.12,000/- per
month at the time of the accident as claimed and therefore, there is no
reason to interfere with the notional income of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the
Tribunal. But, considering the educational background of the deceased
and Exhibit A17 offer letter, I find that it is only just and reasonable to
fix Rs.12,000/- as the notional income of the deceased for the purpose
of calculating the loss of dependency.
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 individuals and in
case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the
accident was below 40 years.
9. The Tribunal accepted 16 as the multiplier applicable and
deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses of
2025:KER:7302
the deceased by following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court
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.16,12,800/-
[12,000 + 40% x ½ x 12 x 16]
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 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
2025:KER:7302
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:
Compensation Final
Sl.No Particulars awarded by the Amount
Tribunal (Rs.) Payable
1 Loss of dependency 13,44,000/- 16,12,800/-
2 Loss of estate 15,000/- 18,150/-
3 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,150/-
4 Loss of consortium 48,400/-
5 Love and affection 60,000/- NIL
6 Transportation charges 5,000/- 5,000/-
7 Medical expenses 6,050/- 6,050/-
Total amount Payable 14,45,050/- 17,08,550/-
12. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the
petitioners is determined as Rs.17,08,550/-.
In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the appellants/petitioners
are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.17,08,550/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only)
2025:KER:7302
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of delay of 107
days in filing the appeal) 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.
Rv
