Kerala High Court
Gopi vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 20 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.619 of 2020
1
2025:KER:44415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 619 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.07.2019 IN OPMV NO.196 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 GOPI,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KANNAMPILLY HOUSE,
ATTAPDAM, KHANNA NAGAR,
KINFRA PARK P.O. - 680 309.
2 USHA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.GOPI, KANNAMPILLY HOUSE,
ATTAPDAM, KHANNA NAGAR, KINFRA PARK P.O. -680309.
3 ARJUN GOPI,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.GOPI, KANNAMPILLY HOUE, ATTAPADAM,
KHANNA NAGAR, KINFRA PARK P.O. -680 309.
BY ADV SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
452, PERIAKULAM ROAD, NEAR ARUN MOTORS, THENI,
TAMILNADU -625 531, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
BY ADV SHRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.619 of 2020
2
2025:KER:44415
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.619 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV)
No.196/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Perumbavoor, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 29/07/2019. The sole
respondent herein is the third respondent 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 petitioners, on 19/11/2016
at about 08:00 p.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KL-48/A-4780 through the Aluva-Munnar
road and when he reached the place by name Odakkali, pick-up van
bearing registration No.TN-60/Q-4738 driven by the second
respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a
2025:KER:44415
result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he
succumbed. An amount of ₹50,00,000/- was claimed as
compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver field written statement denying negligence on the
part of the second respondent/driver and the claims under various
heads.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part
of the second respondent/driver. The amount of compensation
claimed under various heads were disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners.
No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
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
amount of ₹19,90,400/- together with interest @ 8% per annum
2025:KER:44415
from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners
have 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 are challenged by the claim petitioners -
Notional income
The notional income claimed was ₹30,000/-. However, the
Tribunal granted an amount of ₹12,000/-. This according to the
learned counsel for the claim petitioners is quite low as the deceased
was a Mechanical Engineering Graduate student. Relying on the
dictums in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai v. Fathimath
Zuhara @ Zuhra Razak, 2016 KHC 691 : 2016 ACJ 2742 ;
Kumud Gupta v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024
KHC 8230 : 2024 ACJ 658 ; Sethumadhavan v. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, MACA No.369/2017 and
2025:KER:44415
Muraleedharan Nair v. The Divisional Manager, Shriram
General Insurance Company Ltd., MACA No.2129/2015, it is
submitted that he would have at least gotten a monthly income of
₹20,000/- and therefore, the amount needs to be appropriately
enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the notional
income is liable to be fixed taking into account the facts and
circumstances of each case. He submits that only if the students are
from premium engineering colleges like IIT, the notional income is
liable to be fixed at the rate claimed by the claim petitioners. In
support of his argument he relies on the unreported decision of the
Apex Court in Narmadi Bai v. Triupati Arolu, Civil Appeal
No.17999/2017 and Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan v.
Mukesh Kumar, 2025 KHC 7107 : AIR 2025 SC 1094. It was
also pointed out that the engineering college in which the deceased
was studying was a "run of the mill" college, which was closed
down sometime in 2019 or so and hence the employment prospects
of the claim petitioners would have been quite dim, goes the
argument.
2025:KER:44415
In Narmadi Bai (Supra) the incident took place on
01/12/2010. The deceased therein was a 21 year old pursuing
second year Bachelor of Engineering course. The Tribunal fixed the
notional income at ₹3,000/- which was enhanced to ₹6,000/- by the
High Court. In appeal, the Apex Court refixed the notional income
at ₹8,000/- per month. In Deepak Singh (Supra) the incident took
place on 12/10/2012, the deceased therein was also an Engineering
student whose notional income was fixed at ₹10,000/-. Therefore,
the argument of the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer
is that invariably in all cases the notional income of an engineering
graduate cannot be fixed at par with the income of a candidate from
a premium college and so if at all the Court is inclined to accept the
argument of the claim petitioners, there can only be a nominal
enhancement and not an enhancement as canvassed on behalf of the
claim petitioners.
The incident in the case on hand is of the year 2016.
Therefore, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the
case and also the dictums relied on by either side, I find that an
amount of ₹17,000/- per month would be just and reasonable.
2025:KER:44415
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1. Loss of ₹40,00,000/- ₹18,14,400/- ₹25,70,400/-
dependency [₹17,000/-
+40/100]x12x18
2. Expenses for ₹1,00,000/- ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/-
transport (No modification)
3. Damage to ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothes (No modification)
4. Funeral ₹1,00,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
expenses (No modification)
5. Love and ₹10,00,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/-
affection (No modification)
6. Pain and ₹1,00,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹10,000/-
suffering (No modification)
7. Loss of estate ₹20,00,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
(No modification)
8. Loss of Nil ₹80,000/- ₹80,000/-
consortium (No modification)
9. General ₹1,00,000/- Nil Nil
expenses (No modification)
10. Future ₹25,00,000/- Nil Nil
prospectus (No modification)
Total ₹1,00,00,000/- ₹19,90,400/- ₹27,46,400/-
Limited to
₹50,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹7,56,000/- (total
2025:KER:44415
compensation ₹27,46,400/-, that is, ₹19,90,400/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹7,56,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
(excluding the period of 195 days delay in filing the appeal) and
proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioners at the earliest in
accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
