Kerala High Court

Balakrishnan.K vs The Managing Director on 26 June, 2025

M.A.C.A.No.1030 of 2020
                                    1


                                                   2025:KER:46580
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

   THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947

                          MACA NO. 1030 OF 2020

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.11.2019 IN OPMV NO.811 OF

2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

TIRUR.

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

     1       BALAKRISHNAN.K,
             AGED 53 YEARS,
             S/O. LATE KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 1219,
             KUTTITHARA HOUSE, UDINIKKARA,
             NEAR GHSS,P.O EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679 576

     2       BEENA.K.V.,
             AGED 45 YEARS,
             W/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
             RESIDING AT 1219, KUTTITHARA HOUSE,
             UDINIKKARA, NEAR GHSS,P.O EDAPPAL,
             MALAPPURAM-679 576

     3       SREE MAHALAKSHMI.K.,
             AGED 18 YEARS
             D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 1219,
             KUTTITHARA HOUSE, UDINIKKARA,
             NEAR GHSS,P.O EDAPPAL,
             MALAPPURAM-679 576


             BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
             KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O.
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
 M.A.C.A.No.1030 of 2020
                                2


                                                2025:KER:46580
     2       MAHENDRAN.S.
             S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, KAMBAMALA,
             TEA ESTATE, 5/379,
             THALAPUZHA P.O., WAYANAD-670 644

     3       THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
             REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER,
             2ND FLOOR, REMA PLAZA,
             NEAR AYYAPPAN COIL, SS COIL ROAD,
             THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
             SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
             SMT.K.S.SANTHI
             SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
             SHRI.G.RANJU MOHAN, SC, KESNIK
             SHRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.



       THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 26.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.1030 of 2020
                                        3


                                                              2025:KER:46580




                               C.S.SUDHA, J.
               ----------------------------------------------------
                         M.A.C.A.No.1030 of 2020
               ----------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 26th day of June 2025

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in

O.P.(MV) No.811/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Tirur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of

compensation granted by Award dated 15/11/2019. The

respondents herein are the respondents 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 parents and sister

of deceased Vishnu. According to the claim petitioners, on

20/06/2017 at about 04:00 p.m., while the deceased was riding

motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-54-7655 from Valanchery

2025:KER:46580

to Kuttippuram and when he reached the place by the name

Athani, KSRTC bus bearing registration no. KL-15-A-483 driven

by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked

him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to

which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent-owner and second

respondent-driver remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written

statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part

of the first respondent-driver. The amount claimed under various

heads was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was

adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of

the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by

the third respondent.

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

2025:KER:46580

offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an

amount of ₹20,90,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum

from the date of the petition till realisation along 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

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioners that the deceased was a 19-year-old third year student

of Mechanical Engineering diploma course, KMCT Polytechnic

College, Kuttipuram, Malappuram. His income was stated to be

₹15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional

income at ₹9,000/- only, which is quite low going by the dictum

2025:KER:46580

in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, where even the notional

income of a coolie was liable to be fixed at ₹11,000/- per month.

He also relies on the dictum in S. Vasanthi v. Adhiparashakthi

Engineering College, AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5051, to

substantiate his argument that the notional income needs to be

enhanced as claimed in the petition. Per contra, it is submitted by

the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that if at all

the court is inclined to enhance the notional income, it may be as

per the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra).

9.1. Ext.A8 is the certificate issued by the Principal

of the aforesaid College, which shows that the deceased was a

fifth semester Mechanical Engineering diploma course student. In

S. Vasanthi (Supra), the deceased was a second year student of

MBA course. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹7,000/-

per month. The High Court raised it to ₹10,000/- per month.

When the matter came before the Apex Court, it was noticed that

the claim petitioner, his mother, had produced the salary

2025:KER:46580

certificate of two classmates of the deceased, to substantiate her

claim that her son would have also got such an employment on a

monthly salary of approximately ₹40,000/- had he been alive. It

was in the light of the materials on record in the said case, the

notional income was fixed at ₹30,000/- per month. In the case on

hand, apart from Ext.A8, no other evidence is produced to

substantiate the allegation that the income would be ₹15,000/- per

month. However, in the light of the fact that he was a student of

Mechanical Engineering diploma course, I find that an amount of

₹13,500/- can be fixed as a notional income of the deceased,

which would be just and reasonable.

Deduction towards personal expenses

10. Admittedly the deceased was a bachelor.

Therefore, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the third

respondent-insurer that one half of the income of the deceased

was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for

2025:KER:46580

the claim petitioner that when no appeal or cross objection has

been filed by the insurer, they cannot challenge the findings of the

Tribunal. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

third respondent-insurer that the Tribunal had fixed the notional

income at ₹ 9,000/- only and hence the reason why no appeal was

filed against the incorrect deduction made. However, when this

Court is enhancing the notional income, the difference in the

amount would be substantial and hence any additions or

compensation awarded against settled precedents or the law on

the point requires to be deducted, goes the argument.

10.1. It is true that no appeal or cross objection has

been filed by the third respondent-insurer. However, the fact that

the deceased was a bachelor is not disputed. Therefore, the

deduction liable to be made from his income towards personal

expenses is 1/2 and not 1/3 as done by the Tribunal. To the said

extent also the impugned Award shall stand modified.

11. The impugned Award is modified to the

2025:KER:46580

following extent:

Sl. Head of claim Amount Awarded by Modified in No. Tribunal appeal (in ₹) (in ₹)

1. Loss of future income 18,14,400/- 20,41,200/-

[13,500 + (13,500 x 40%) x 12 x 18 x1/2]

2. Loss of love and 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/-

              affection                              (No modification)


3.         Funeral expenses            15,000/-          15,000/-
                                                     (No modification)
4.           Loss of estate            15,000/-          15,000/-
                                                     (No modification)
5.           Loss of filial            80,000/-          80,000/-
             consortium                              (No modification)
6.        Pain and suffering           15,000/-          15,000/-
                                                     (No modification)
                 Total                20,89,400/-      23,16,200/-
                                      rounded to
                                      20,90,000/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹2,26,200/- (total

compensation = ₹23,16,200/- that is, ₹20,90,000/- granted by the

Tribunal + ₹2,26,200/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate

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

and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurance company

2025:KER:46580

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 deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall

disburse the amount to the claim petitioners at the earliest in

accordance with law after making deductions, if any.