Kerala High Court
Sarada.A vs Rajesh on 6 March, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 591/2021 :1:
2025:KER:18816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 591 OF 2021
AWARD DATED 12.07.2019 IN OP(MV) NO.591 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SARADA.A
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O LATE MURUKAN, KORAMBULLI VEEDU, NILAYATHIRI, PUDUSSERY,
PUDUSSERY WEST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 623.
2 MIDHILA, AGED 21 YEARS,
D/O LATE MURUKAN, KORAMBULLI VEEDU, NILAYATHIRI, PUDUSSERY,
PUDUSSERY WEST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 623.
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RAJESH
S/O KARUPPUSWAMY, PULINGOOTTAM, KUTTIPPALLAM,
PANNIPERUMTHALA, CHITUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 101.
2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,
N.S TOWER, NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD,
PALAKKAD, 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
R2 BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON 06.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 591/2021 :2:
2025:KER:18816
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 591 of 2021
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 591 of 2017 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Murukan
who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on
17.08.2016, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, lorry driven by
the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the
motorcycle and thereby, the deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The 1 st respondent is
also the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2 nd respondent is the
insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A18
were marked from the side of the petitioners and from the side of the
respondents, Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked. The Tribunal recorded a
2025:KER:18816
finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part
of the 1st respondent and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,63,000 to the petitioners.
4. Heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the
appellants and Smt. P.K Santhamma, the learned counsel for the
respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and for the
reason that the petitioners have not proved the income of the deceased,
the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs.10,000/- and the same is on
the lower side. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] shows that even in the absence of any evidence,
the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed 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
2025:KER:18816
calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.10,500/-,
as the accident occurred in the year 2016. Therefore, considering the
facts and circumstances, I find that it is only reasonable to fix the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/- for the purpose of
calculating the compensation
6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and
Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of
future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a
permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in
case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the
accident was below 40 years.
7. The Tribunal accepted 18 as the multiplier applicable and
deducted 50% of the income towards the personal and living expenses
of the deceased by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802
(SC)]. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation for loss of
2025:KER:18816
dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to
Rs.15,87,600 [(10500 +40%) x ½ x 12 x 18]. The Tribunal has already
granted Rs.15,12,000/- under this head. Hence, an additional
compensation of Rs.75,600/- is granted to the appellant under this head.
The compensation fixed by the Tribunal under other heads are not under
challenge.
8. 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.)
75,600/-
Loss of dependency 15,12,000/-
Total enhanced compensation
75,600/-
9. Thus, a total amount of Rs.75,600/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Thousand Six Hundred 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
2025:KER:18816
59 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 as above.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
