Kerala High Court
Omana vs The Branch Manager on 3 March, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 1315/2019 :1:
2025:KER:17387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 1315 OF 2019
AWARD DATED 23.12.2017 IN O.P(MV) NO.582 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 OMANA, AGED 64 YEARS,
W/O.LATE GOPALAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL, KOTTEE MURI,
THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK.
2 JAYALEKSHMI, AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O.PRIYAN, MAKARAJYOTHI, KARICKAL, KARIMPINPUZHA, PUTHOOR
VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA
3 DIVIYA, AGED 38 YEARS,
W/O.JIJIMON, JIJIBHAVANAM, CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE.
4 DILEEP, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.LATE GOPALAN, KOCHUPRAMBIL, KOTTE MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA
VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI. NIRMAL V NAIR
SMT. A.D.DIVYA
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MEDAYIL COMPLEX, OLD QUILON
ALAPPUZHA ROAD, KAYAMKULAM.P.O-690 158.
R3 BY ADV SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.02.2025, THE COURT ON 03.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 1315/2019 :2:
2025:KER:17387
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 1315 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 582 of 2012 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased
Gopalan, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the
petitioners, on 27.08.2011, while the deceased was travelling in the
cabin of a goods vehicle driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, the vehicle caused to hit on the back of another tipper
lorry parked on the side of the road and thereby, the deceased sustained
fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on his way to
hospital. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and
the 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked from the
side of the petitioners and Exhibit B1 was marked from the side of the
respondents.
2025:KER:17387
4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred
because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that
respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- to the
petitioners.
5. Heard Sri. Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri. P. M. M Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent
insurance company.
6. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 65 years at
the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- from his
occupation as a fish vendor. The learned counsel for the appellants
argued that the Tribunal fixed only Rs.6,000/- as notional income and
the same is on the lower side. The decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2
SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] would show that even in the absence of
any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed
2025:KER:17387
as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and
for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by
adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is
calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.8,000/-, as
the accident occurred in the year 2011. Considering the facts and
circumstances, I find that it is only reasonable to fix the monthly
notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- for the purpose of
calculating the compensation.
7. The Tribunal accepted 5 as the multiplier applicable and deducted
one-third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The
2nd and 3rd petitioners are daughters of the deceased aged 40 and 31
years respectively and it is not disputed that they are married and living
separately in their matrimonial home. In the absence of any evidence to
indicate that petitioners 2 and 3 are financially dependent on the
deceased, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal
that only the 1st and 4th petitioners can be treated as dependents of the
deceased and in that circumstance, there is no reason to interfere with
the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
2025:KER:17387
8. The Tribunal followed the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] for awarding compensation under the
conventional heads and therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the
compensation granted by the Tribunal for conventional heads. When the
compensation for loss of dependency is calculated as per the revised
notional income, the same would come to Rs.3,20,000/-[8000 x 5 X 12 x
2/3]. The Tribunal had already granted Rs.2,40,000/- under this head.
Therefore, an additional compensation of Rs.80,000/- is granted to the
appellant under this head. I find that the compensation granted by the
Tribunal under other heads are reasonable and requires no interference.
9. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation as given below:
Additional
Compensation amount granted
Particulars awarded by the by this Court
Tribunal (Rs.) (Rs.)
80,000/-
Loss of dependency 2,40,000/-
Total enhanced compensation 80,0000/-
2025:KER:17387
10. Thus, a total amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand
only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the
application till realization (excluding the period of delay of 295 days in
filing the appeal). The appellants would also be entitled to proportionate
costs in the case. The claimants shall furnish the details of the bank
account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount.
The appeal is allowed in part as above.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
