Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Leelakrishnan M.B on 1 July, 2025
2025:KER:47716
M.A.C.A.No.285 of 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 285 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.09.2019 IN OPMV NO.933 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
KOCHIN, ERNAKULAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL
CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
VISHNU BUILDING, KADAVANTHRA P.O.,
KOCHI-682 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 LEELAKRISHNAN M.B.
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, REVATHY, PALLIVILA,
PERUMKADAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 124.
2 SUGATHAKUMARI,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.LEELAKRISHNAN, REVATHY, PALLIVILA,
PERUMKADAVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 124.
2025:KER:47716
M.A.C.A.No.285 of 2020
2
3 LINU KRISHNAN.L.S.,
AGED 27 YEARS,
REVATHY, PALLIVILA, PERUMKADAVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 124.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SMT.K.R.RIJA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:47716
M.A.C.A.No.285 of 2020
3
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.285 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third
respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.933/2015 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the
Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 23/09/2019. The
respondents herein are the the claim petitioners in the petition. In
this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as
described in the original petition.
2. The claim petitioners are the father, mother and
brother respectively of deceased Liju Krishan. According to the
claim petitioners, on 23/08/2014 at 12:30 p.m., while the deceased
was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-01-W-1534
from Kesavadasapuram to Paruthipara and when he reached near
the place by name Paruthipara, vehicle bearing registration
2025:KER:47716
no.KL-07-CA-9710 driven by the second respondent in a rash and
negligent manner hit the right handle of the motorcycle as a result
of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to which he
succumbed.
3. The first respondent-owner and second
respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but disputing negligence on the
part of the second respondent. The amount claimed under various
heads was also disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, No oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side
of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced
by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
2025:KER:47716
amount of ₹18,66,600/- together with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent
has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the
Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal
under the following heads is challenged by the third
respondent/insurer-
Notional Income
It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the third respondent/insurer that the notional income of
₹12,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence
the same is liable to be reduced. Per contra, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the amount fixed is
reasonable and so no interference is called for.
2025:KER:47716
9.1. The deceased was 26 years old at the time of
the incident. The materials on record show that he had completed
his B.Tech course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
Ext.A12 shows that he was included in the shortlist of candidates
for the post of Lower Division Clerk in various departments.
Though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal has
fixed the notional income at ₹12,000/- only, which I find to be
just and reasonable and therefore I find no grounds for
interference.
Compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium
10. Admittedly the claim petitioners are the parents
and the brother of the deceased. Going by the dictums in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram,
(2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC
3076: 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Somwati, 2020 KHC 6530 : (2020) 9 SCC 644, the parents are
entitled to an amount ₹40,000/- each towards filial consortium.
2025:KER:47716
The third claim petitioner is not entitled to any compensation
under loss of consortium. But he is certainly entitled to
compensation for loss of love and affection. A total amount of
₹1,20,000/- is seen given under this head, which is also correct as
the parents are entitled to a total amount of ₹80,000/- and the third
claim petitioner to an amount of ₹40,000/-. Therefore, I find no
grounds for interference into the impugned Award.
In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
