Kerala High Court

Anitha vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... on 2 June, 2025

                                                2025:KER:38439

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

   MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                      MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

        AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.05.2018 IN OPMV NO.390 OF

2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR

APPELLANTS/ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 4:

    1      ANITHA
           AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.SAJEEV, MANAPPURATH HOUSE,
           CHERIYAPALLATHURUTH KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE

    2      SHILAS
           AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SAJEEV, MANAPPURATH HOUSE,
           CHERIYAPALLATHURUTH KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE

    3      SHILJA
           AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.SAJEEV, MANAPPURATH HOUSE,
           CHERIYAPALLATHURUTH KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE

           SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
           SRI.K.SHAJU VARGHESE
           SHRI.RIBIN BENNY
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

           ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
           VISHRANTHI, MELARAM TOWERS, NO.2/319,
           RAJEEV GANDHI SALAI, KARAPAKKAM, CHENNAI,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

           SHRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
           SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                               2025:KER:38439
MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

                                       2



                              C.S.SUDHA, J.
              ----------------------------------------------------
                        M.A.C.A. No.402 of 2020
              ----------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 2nd day of June 2025

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the additional claim petitioners 2 to

4 in O.P.(MV) No.390/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the

amount of compensation granted by Award dated 25/05/2018. The

sole respondent herein is the third respondent/insurer in the petition.

In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as

described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 14/03/2015

at 04:25 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing

registration no.KL637737 through the Paravur-Moothakunnam road

and when he reached near the Bharath Hospital, Moothakunnam,

car bearing registration No.KL7BN7489 driven by the first 2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with his

motorcycle as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries,

pursuant to which he was totally bedridden. A sum of ₹30,00,000/-

was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. During the course of the proceedings before the

Tribunal, the claim petitioner died and hence his legal

representatives were impleaded as additional claim petitioners 2

to 4.

4. The first respondent/driver filed written statement

denying negligence on his part. It was contended that the incident

occurred due to the negligence of the first claim petitioner. It was

also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. The second respondent/owner filed written

statement supporting the contentions of the first respondent/driver.

The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were

disputed.

6. The third respondent/insurer filed written 2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the

offending vehicle, but denied negligence on the part of the first

respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income of the claim

petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the

compensation claimed was quite excessive.

7. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and

Exts.A1 to A9 series were marked on the side of the claim

petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the

respondents.

8. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found

negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the car

resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of

₹18,21,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date

of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs.

Aggrieved by the Award, claim petitioners 2 to 4 have come up in

appeal.

2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

9. 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.

10. Heard both sides

11. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under

the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner -

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioners that the first claim petitioner died on 18/06/2016 due to

the severity of the injuries sustained. At the time of the incident, he

was 53 years old and a mason. Therefore, an amount of ₹20,000/-

towards monthly income was claimed. To substantiate the

allegation, the third additional claim petitioner was examined as

PW1. Her testimony has not been discredited in any way.

Moreover, in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian. Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236,

the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2015 is liable to be 2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

fixed at ₹10,000/-. In such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in

fixing the notional income at ₹9,000/-, goes the argument. Per

contra, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for

the third respondent/insurer that in the absence of any cogent

evidence being let in to prove the monthly income, the amount of

₹9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

It is true that there is no documentary evidence to establish

the monthly income of the deceased. However, the testimony of

PW1 to the effect that her father was a mason at the time of the

incident is not seen discredited or disputed. In the light of the

testimony and in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa

(Supra), I find that an amount of ₹11,000/- can be fixed as notional

income of the deceased which would be just and reasonable.

Bystander expenses

It is brought to my notice that the deceased was an

inpatient for a period of 74 days. In addition to that, he was totally

bedridden for a period of twelve and a half months till he died on 2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

18/06/2016. However, the Tribunal granted bystander expenses

only for a period of 60 days, which again is stated to be an infirmity

committed by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned senior

counsel for the third respondent/insurer that though such a claim

was made, there is no evidence adduced to substantiate the

allegation that the deceased was completely bedridden for a period

of 15 months. That being the position, the Tribunal was right in

granting bystander expenses for a period of 60 days.

Exts.A4 and A5 will show that the deceased was

hospitalized for a period of 74 days in three different spells. Ext.A6

postmortem certificate shows that he died on 18/06/2016 due to the

severity of the injuries sustained in the incident. In such

circumstances and taking into account the injuries as revealed in

Ext.A6, I find that he is entitled to bystander expenses for a period

of 6 months in addition to 74 days during which he was

hospitalized.

2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

Extra nourishment

It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was

claimed under this head, the Tribunal has not granted any amount.

This is again challenged by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioners. Taking into account the period of hospitalization

undergone and the period for which the deceased was bedridden

before he breathed his last, I find that an amount of ₹45,000/- under

this head would be just and reasonable.

Loss of consortium

It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was

claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of

only ₹40,000/-. In the light of 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, additional claim petitioners 3 and 2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

4, who are the children of the deceased, are also entitled to

compensation towards parental consortium of ₹40,000/- each. As

per the dictum in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi, 2017 (5) KHC 350: (2017) 16 SCC 680,

pronounced on 31/10/2017, the consortium amount has to be

enhanced every three years by 10%. The additional claim

petitioners 3 and 4 were not granted consortium by the Tribunal.

Hence, they are entitled to two enhancements at the rate of 10%

every three years, that is, on 31/7/2020 and 31/7/2023. Therefore,

the additional claim petitioners 3 and 4 will be entitled to ₹48,400/-

each. (31/07/2020 - ₹40,000 + 10% = ₹44,000; 31/07/2023 -

₹44,000 + 10% = ₹ 48,400/-).

12. The impugned Award is modified to the following

extent:

Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal

1. Transportation ₹50,000/- ₹20,000/- ₹20,000/-

        expenses                                          (No
                                                       Modification)
                                                              2025:KER:38439
MACA NO. 402 OF 2020





 2.      Bystander      ₹2,00,000/-          ₹30,000/-         ₹1,27,000/-
         expenses                            (500 x 60)      [500x(74+180)]
 3.     Damage to        ₹5,000/-             ₹2,000/-         ₹2,000/-
        clothes and                                              (No
          articles                                            Modification)
 4.       Medical       ₹7,00,000/-         ₹5,05,800/-       ₹5,05,800/-
          expenses                                               (No
                                                              Modification)
 5.        Extra        ₹1,00,000/-              Nil           ₹45,000/-
        nourishment
 6.       Pain and      ₹5,00,000/-         ₹2,50,000/-       ₹2,50,000/-
         sufferings                                              (No
                                                              Modification)
 7.        Funeral       ₹50,000/-           ₹15,000/-         ₹15,000/-
          expenses                                               (No
                                                              Modification)
 8.    Loss of income ₹19,36,000/-           ₹8,71,200/-      ₹10,64,800/-
        for the family                     [(9,000+10%) x    [(11,000+10%)
                                            12 x 2/3 x 11]   x 12 x 2/3 x 11]
 9.    Compensation     ₹1,00,000/-              Nil             Nil
         for loss of                                             (No
       care, company,                                         Modification)
        security etc.
 10.    Loss of love    ₹6,00,000/-              Nil             Nil
        and affection                                            (No
                                                              Modification)
 11.   Compensation     ₹1,00,000/-              Nil             Nil
        for mental                                               (No
          agony                                               Modification)
 12.   Loss of estate   ₹2,00,000/-          ₹15,000/-         ₹15,000/-
                                                                 (No
                                                              Modification)
                                                             2025:KER:38439
MACA NO. 402 OF 2020





 13.      Loss of        ₹2,00,000/-         ₹40,000/-        ₹40,000/-
       consortium (2nd                                          (No
           claim                                             Modification)
         petitioner)
 14.      Loss of         ₹96,800/-            Nil            ₹96,800/-
          parental                                           (48,400 x 2)
        consortium
           (claim
        petitioners 3
           and 4)
 15.     Expenses            Nil             ₹72,000/-        ₹72,000/-
          towards                                               (No
       physiotherapy                                         Modification)
           Total         ₹30,00,000/-        ₹18,21,000/-    ₹22,53,400/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹4,32,400/- (total

compensation ₹22,53,400/- that is, ₹18,21,000/- granted by the

Tribunal + ₹4,32,400/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate

of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization

(excluding the period of 453 days delay in filing the appeal) and

proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to

deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of

60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On 2025:KER:38439 MACA NO. 402 OF 2020

deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the

claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making

deductions, if any.