Kerala High Court
Neethu vs Vali on 3 March, 2025
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
1
2025:KER:17821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.03.2017 IN OPMV NO.639 OF 2010 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 NEETHU, CHITTAKKATTU VEEDU, CHANDIROOR P.O.,
AROOR, CHERTHALA.
2 SWAMINI, CHITTAKKATTU VEEDU, CHANDIROOR P.O.,
AROOR, CHERTHALA.
3 PADMANABHAN, CHITTAKKATTU VEEDU, CHANDIROOR
P.O.,AROOR, CHERTHALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 VALI, S/O.NABI, SEETIPALAM,NAGARAMPALAM, GUNTUR,ANDHRA
PRADESH - 522 601.
2 RAJESH NAIDU, S/O.SATHYANARAYANA, DOOR
NO.22.15.5,CHILAKALURIPET, M.M.STREET, GUNTUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 601.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
BY ADV SEBASTIAN VARGHESE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
2
2025:KER:17821
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.639/2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Alapuzha, are the appellants herein. (For the purpose
of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the
Tribunal).
2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, by the wife and parents of the deceased by name Viju C.P. @ Biju,
who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.02.2009. According to
them, on 23.02.2009 at about 2.45 am, while the deceased was driving his car
through Kollam - Alappuzha National Highway, a lorry driven by the 1 st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car. As a result of
which, he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the very
same day.
3. The 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of
the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of
compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.11,04,000/- limited to Rs.11,00,000/-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
2025:KER:17821
accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1
to A11. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.10,32,500/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the
offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by
the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as Sales Supervisor
of Santhigiri Ashram, earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
2025:KER:17821
monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. They have also produced Ext.A9 salary
certificate. However, nobody was examined to prove Ext.A9 and as such, it
could not be taken as the proof of income of the deceased. The learned counsel
for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie,
during the year 2009 will come to Rs.7,000/-. Since the petitioners could not
prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra),
his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7,000/-.
12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 33 years.
Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future
prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 16, as held in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the
deceased was married who left behind 3 dependants, towards personal and living
expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma
(supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to
Rs.12,54,400/-.
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
2025:KER:17821
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium
and Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection. In the light of the decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and
the dependents (parents, children and spouse) are entitled to get a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every
three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are
entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium,
petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3).
14. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further
compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision
in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others, [(2020)9
SCC 644]. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is
to be deducted.
15. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the
lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the
above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and
suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
2025:KER:17821
16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as
the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
17. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.14,65,400/-, as modified and recalculated above and given
in the table below, for easy reference.
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal
(in Rs.)
1 Transport to hospital 4000 4,000
3 Others :
Funeral expenses 25,000 18,150
4 Compensation for pain and 10000 25000
sufferings
5 Compensation for loss of
contribution to the welfare of 7,68,000 12,54,400
the family
6 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 1,45,200
7 Loss of estate 25,000 18,150
8 Compensation for loss of love 1,00,000 Nil
and affection
Total 1032500 14,65,400
Enhanced 432900
MACA NO. 3218 OF 2017
2025:KER:17821
18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent
is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.14,65,400/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Sixty
Five Thousand Four Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any,
along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the
petition till realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two
months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%).
19. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse
the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding
court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.
SD/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
SMA
