Kerala High Court
Esthapanose vs The Managing Director on 7 March, 2025
2025:KER:28008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO.109 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2020 IN OPMV
NO.1358 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS
1 ESTHAPANOSE,
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O. THOMA PAILY, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE,
POTTA VILLAGE, DESOM P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680722.
2 CHETHALAN ITTIKURU ROSY,
AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O. ESTHAPANOSE, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE,
POTTA VILLAGE, DESOM P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680722.
3 ANU ROSE,
AGED 34 YEARS,
D/O. ESTHAPANOSE, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE,
POTTA VILLAGE, DESOM P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680722.
BY ADVS.
A.R.NIMOD
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CARAVEL LOGISTICS PVT LTD, 1ST FLOOR,
LAKSHMI HOUSE, KPK MENON ROAD,
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
2
WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682003,
2 SUNIL K.N,
S/O. NARAYANAN, KUNDANY HOUSE, POTTA VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680722.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,
VELANCHERY MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR,
KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU - 600073, REPRESENTED BY
BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
SMT. K.N RAJANI- R4
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2577/2020,
2954/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO.2577 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2020 IN OPMV
NO.1358 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/THIRD RESPONDENT
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
VELANCHERY MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMINAGAR,
KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU 600073 REP. BY THE
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOCHI-682 011
BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
1 ESTHAPANOSE,
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAPAILY, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE, POTTA VILLAGE
AND DESOM AND P.O., CHALAKKUDY TALUK,
TRISSUR DIST.
PIN-680 722
2 CHETHALANLTTIKURU ROSY,
AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O.ESTHAPANOSE, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE,
POTTA VILLAGE AND DESOM AND P.O.,
CHALAKKUDY TALUK, TRISSUR DIST.
PIN-680 722
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
4
3 ANU ROSE,
AGED 34 YEARS,
D/O.ESTHAPANOSE, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE, POTTA
VILLAGE AND DESOM AND P.O., CHALAKKUDY TALUK,
TRISSUR DIST.
PIN-680 722
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CARAVEL LOGISTICS PVT LTD., 1ST FLOOR,
LAKSHMI HOUSE, KPK MENON ROAD, WILLINGTON
ISLAND, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DIST-682 003
5 SUNIL K.N.
S/O.NARAYANAN, KUNDANY HOUSE, POTTA VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680722
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.ANILA PETER
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.109/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO.2954 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2020 IN OPMV
NO.1361 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/THIRD RESPONDENT
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
VELANCHERY MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR,
KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU 600073, REP BY THE
AUTHORISED SIGANATORY, MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOCHI-682 011.
BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
1 G.I. GEORGE,
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O ITTIKKURU, CHETHALAN HOUSE, SITHARA NAGAR,
E.CHALAKUDY VILLAGE , ELANJIPARA P.O.,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST, PIN-680 721.
2 LISSY GEORGE,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O GEORGE, CHETHALAN HOUSE, SITHARA NAGAR, E
CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, ELANJIPARA P.O.,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST,
PIN-680 721.
3 ANJU MARIYA GEORGE,
AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O C.I. GEORGE, CHETHALAN HOUSE, SITHARA NAGAR,
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
6
E. CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, ELANJIPARA P.O.,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST,
PIN-680 721.
4 ALJO GEORGE,
AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O C.I.GEORGE, CHETHALAN HOUSE, SITHARA NAGAR,
E. CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, ELANJIPARA P.O.,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST,
PIN-680 721.
5 THE MANANGING DIRECTOR,
CARAVEL LOGISTICS PVT LTD, 1ST FLOOR, LAKSHMI
HOUSE, KPK MENON ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DIST-682 003.
6 SUNIL K.N,
S/O NARAYANAN, KUNDANY HOUSE, POTTA VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 722.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.109/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
7
JUDGMENT
The order of this Court shall dispose of three appeals,
two filed by the Insurance Company and one filed by the
claimants in O.P(MV) No.1358 of 2017 on the files of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda for enhancement of
the compensation.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the
appeal are as follows:-
On 25.05.2017, at about 4.50 p.m. while one
Amal Roy was riding a car bearing Registration No. KL
46/G-3230 along with one Alphin George through
Vallarpadam Container Road and when they reached near
Mulavukad bridge they met with an accident when the car
dashed against an illegally parked heavy goods vehicle
bearing Registration No. KL 43/D-9868 violating the traffic
rules since it was in a no parking area and in the middle of
the highway very close to center median. The claimants of
both deceased Amal Roy and Alphin George approached
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda by
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
preferring two separate applications are under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants in O.P. (MV) No.
1358 of 2017 are the father, mother and sister of the
deceased Amal Roy, whereas the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.
1361 of 2017 are the father, mother and siblings of the
deceased Alphin George. The legal heirs of deceased
Amal Roy contended that late Amal Roy was a Marine
Engineer working at Qatar and was drawing an income of
Rs.8,500/- Qatar Riyal. In support of their claim, the
appointment letter attested by the chamber of Commerce
as well as the Embassy was produced before the tribunal.
The legal heirs of deceased Alphin George contended that
he was working in a private firm and was having a monthly
income of Rs.15,000/-. In support of the aforesaid
contention the claimants produced the salary statement
and the bank statement. They also examined PW1 the
employer to depose that the deceased Alphin George was
earning a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-. Since both the
applications were jointly tried by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. Exts. A1 to A37 were jointly
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
marked. The insurance company did not adduce any oral
or documentary evidence but raised objection regarding
the occurrence of the accident and contended that the
accident was only due to the negligent driving of the
deceased Amal Roy. According to the insurance company,
since the accident occurred at around 4.50 p.m., and if
due care was taken by the driver the accident could have
been averted. Thus there was an attempt made to fasten
the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the
vehicle i.e., deceased Amal Roy and thereby the insurance
company attempted to invoke the liability for payment of
compensation. The tribunal on appreciation of evidence
rejected the contention of the insurance company as
regards to the claim for contributory negligence against
the deceased Amal Roy and proceeded to consider the
case on merits. On further consideration of the contention
of the legal heirs of deceased Amal Roy, the tribunal found
that the claimants were successful in proving the avocation
of the deceased Amal Roy as a Marine Engineer but
however proceeded to reduce the income actually earned
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
by late Amal Roy and fixed the income at Rs.1 lakh and
granted the compensation as follows.
Sl. Head of Claim Amount Claimed Amount Basis Vital
No. (Rs.) Awarded details in a
(Rs.) nut shell
1 Funeral expenses 50,000 15,000
2 Transportation 10,000 5,000
expenses
3 Medical expenses 2,00,000 1,22,391
4 Pain and suffering 5,00,000 15,000
5 Loss of dependency 4,00,00,000 1,19,17,850 7,01,050x17
6 Loss of love and 2,00,000 Nil
affection
7 Extra nourishment 10,000 Nil
8 Loss of estate 50,00,000 15,000
9 Damage to clothing 5,000 Nil
10 Loss of expectation of 50,00,000 Nil
life
11 Shock and anxiety 2,00,000 Nil
12 Loss of only son 5,00,000
13 Loss of gratuitious 2,00,000 Nil
service to parents
14 Loss of consortium Nil 80,000
5,18,75,000/- 1,21,70,241 1,21,70,250
Total (Limited to (rounded off)
2,00,00,000) along with
8% interest
from
07.10.2017
till realisation
3. Insofar as the claim on account of death of
Alphin George the tribunal accepted the evidence of the
PW1 and the fixed the income at Rs.20,000/- and granted
the following compensation.
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Basis Vital
No claimed awarded details in a
(Rs.) (Rs.) nut shell
1 Funeral expenses 50,000 15,000
2 Transportation 10,000 5,000
expenses
3 Medical expenses 50,000 Nil
4 Pain and suffering 5,00,000 15,000
5 Loss of 40,00,000 40,32,072 (18,667x12x1
dependency 8)
6 Loss of love and 2,00,000 Nil
affection
7 Extra nourishment 5,000 Nil
8 Loss of estate 20,00,000 15,000
9 Damage to 5,000 Nil
clothing
10 Loss of 30,00,000 Nil
expectation of life
11 Shock and anxiety 2,00,000 Nil
12 Loss of gratuitous 5,00,000 Nil
service
13 Loss of Nil 1,60,,000
consortium
Total 75,20,000 42,42,072 Rs.42,42,100
Limited to (rounded
40,00,000/- off)along with
8% interest
from
07.10.2017 till
realisation
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
4. While granting the aforesaid compensation
the tribunal deducted only 1/3 of the amount towards
personal expenses of the deceased Alphin George in
OP(MV) No.1361 of 2017.
5. Aggrieved by the finding of the tribunal that
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
vehicle .i.e. late Amal Roy and also taking only 1/3 of the
personal expenses of the deceased Alphin George, the
insurance company has preferred the MACA No.2577 of
2020 and MACA No.2954 of 2020. MACA No.109 of 2021
is preferred by the legal heirs of the Amal Roy to the
extend of reducing the monthly income claimed by them.
6. Heard Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned Counsel
appearing for the insurance company and Sri. A.R. Nimod
learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Smt. K.N.
Rajani learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
7. Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned counsel appearing
for the insurance company, raised the following
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
submissions.
a. The negligence on the part of the claimant was
evident from the fact that the accident took place during
day light at 4.50 P.M and had the driver been a little bit
careful the accident could have been avoided.
b. The mere parking of the trailer of the container
would not, ipso facto be an equal presumption that the
driver of the vehicle was negligent.
c. Insofar as the avocation of deceased Amal Roy is
concerned the tribunal ought to have found uncertainty in
the job especially since the deceased Amal Roy was
employed in Qatar.
d. Even the bank statement produced before the
tribunal as Ext.A17 does not show consistent remittance
made into the account in India and during the relevant
period only Rs.4,00,000/- was remitted into the account.
e. In respect of the claim on account of the death of
the Alphin George, it is pointed out that, in the
application, the legal heirs only claim an income of
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
Rs.15000/- but just before the claims started, documents
were produced to evidence that he was drawing an income
of Rs.20,000/-. The evidence of PW1 could not have been
relied on by the tribunal especially since the oral testimony
of PW1 can only be at best regarded as interested.
f. Since the deceased the Alphin George was a
bachelor, 50% of the amount ought to have been deducted
by the tribunal towards the personal expenses.
8. In reply, Sri. A.R.Nimod, learned Counsel for the
claimants raised the following submissions.
a. The legal heirs of deceased Amal Roy had taken
every such efforts to prove not only the qualification of the
deceased Amal Roy but also the avocation as a Marine
Engineer.
b. The evidence in the form of Exts.A12 and A13
would prove the qualification of deceased Amal Roy
whereas Ext.A14 is the salary certificate issued by the
employer of late Amal Roy.
c. Ext.A18 Bank statement from the Commercial
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
Bank at Doha would prove the periodic remittance of 8500
Qatar Riyal into the account of deceased Amal Roy. The
mere fact that subsequent remittance were not made into
the Indian account, maintained in India in Ext.A17 by
itself will not lead to a conclusion that the deceased was
not earning an amount of 8500 Riyals.
d. With reference to the Ext.A16 it is contented
that the residency permit issued to the deceased Amal Roy
shows that at least up to 2019 shows the nature of
residence in Qatar is more or less permanent.
e. The contention of the insurance company that the
uncertainty of the employment of deceased Amal Roy at
Qatar has to be reckoned for the the purpose of calculating
the income is unsustainable in the light of the fact that the
insurance company has not adduced any evidence before
the tribunal.
9. I have considered the rival submissions raised
across the bar. On consideration of the rival submissions
this Court is of the considered view that the contention of
the insurance company that the contributory negligence
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
must be fixed on the deceased Amal Roy cannot be
sustained for the following reasons. The charge sheet
produced before the tribunal and marked as Ext.A5
specifically shows that the driver of the container lorry had
parked the vehicle contrary to the roads and in a
negligent manner which resulted in the accident. It was
open for the insurance company to disprove the contents
of the charge sheet by adducing appropriate evidence
before the tribunal. But on contrary, the insurance
company failed miserably to adduce any evidence.
10. The question whether the findings recorded in
the charge sheet would form the basis of a prima facie
proof regarding negligence was considered by the
Supreme Court in Ranjeet & Another v. Abdul kayam
Neb & Others, SLP No.10351 of 2019 dated
25.02.2025, wherein it was held that the contents of
charge sheet will prima facie establish the negligence
against the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. In Prabhavathi and Others v. Managing
Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
Corporation, Civil Appeal No.3465 - 3466 of 2025.,
Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos.21450 - 21451 of 2023
dated 28.02.2025, the Supreme Court held that in the
absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on the
record disproving the contents of the charge sheet and to
prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the
tribunal and the High Court cannot fastened the
contributory negligence.
12. In the present case it is pertinent to note that
the driver of the vehicle had parked the vehicle in the
middle of the road. In Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati
Rangole & Ors. [AIR 2024 SC 4627], the Supreme
Court held that if the offending vehicle is parked without
taking precautionary steps, then it is a clear case of
negligence.
13. Read in cumulative with the evidence on record
and also the principles expounded by the Supreme Court
in the aforementioned decisions, this court has no
hesitation to hold that the contention of the insurance
company that the contributory negligence has to be
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
attributed towards the the driver late Amal Roy cannot be
sustained.
14. Accordingly the said point has been answered
against the insurance company.
15. Coming to the claim of the insurance company
that the amount of compensation granted on account of
the death of Amal Roy is on a higher side, this court
cannot, but notice the fact that despite adducing sufficient
evidence the tribunal failed to consider the evidence in this
respect and this is precisely the reason why the
appellants/claimants have come before this Court seeking
for enhancement.
16. The evidence in OP (MV) No. 1358/2017, consist
of Ext.A12, A13 and A14. Ext. A12 and A13 proves
unequivocally the educational qualification of the deceased
Amal Roy whereas Ext.A16 is the residence permit.
Ext.A14 is the salary certificate issued by the Banana
Island Resort, Doha which is attested by the Qatar
chamber of commerce and industry on 21.03.2018. A
further reading of Ext.A14 shows that the statement is also
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
attested by the Embassy of India. The aforementioned
attestation though does not primarily prove the contents of
Ext.A14 but is a relevant piece of evidence insofar as the
claim of the legal heirs of the deceased Amal Roy is
concerned. The argument of the learned counsel for the
insurance company that merely because of the attestation
the contents of Ext.A14 cannot be stated to be proof,
appears to be untenable especially since the claimants that
is the legal heirs of the deceased Amal Roy cannot be
expected to examine the employer in an application under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is not
an adversarial litigation. It is held by the Supreme Court
in Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.
[2013 KHC 4486] that the salary certificate once it is
attested by the consulate abroad has to be taken as the
prima facie evidence regarding the income of the
deceased. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in its
claim to hold that the tribunal erred egregiously in not
taking the entire amount mentioned in Ext.A14 and
erroneously fixed the monthly income at Rs.1,00,000/-
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore the findings
of the tribunal as regards the income has to be necessarily
interfered with.
17. Similarly the claimants of deceased Amal Roy
are also entitled to get 10% future prospectus or the
conventional heads going by the decision of the Supreme
Court N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam M/s General
Insurance company Ltd [AIR 2021 SC 5218] followed
by this Court in Branch Manager, United India
Insurance Company Ltd, Kozhikode Vs. Mujeeb
Rahman A.P [2025 (1) KHC 606].
18. Coming to the next contention raised by the
learned counsel for the insurance company that the
claimants of deceased Alphin George are not entitled to
have the monthly income fixed at Rs. 20,000/- since their
claim before the tribunal was only Rs.15,000/- in their
application and it is only at the stage of trial, the claimants
have produced the documents namely the salary certificate
and also examined PW1. It is true that the legal heirs of
Alphin George had no claim that an amount of Rs.20,000/-
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
has to be fixed as income. However, it is pertinent to note
that the averments in the claim petition regarding the
income is not sacrosanct for the tribunal while considering
the income to be fixed for the purpose of calculating
compensation.
19. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Martin
Xavier [2024 KHC 7049] this court has held that the
tribunal is not bound by the averments in the claim
petition regarding the income while considering the just
and fair compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Pertinently, as against the evidence both
documentary and oral the insurance company did not
adduce any evidence with regard to the contention that
the legal heirs of deceased Alphin George are not entitled
to claim the amount as awarded by the tribunal. Therefore
this Court has no hesitation to reject the above said
contentions.
20. Coming to the last contentions raised regarding
the deduction of the 1/3 income towards personal
expenses, the learned counsel for the insurance company
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Another [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and contented that the
deceased being a bachelor, normally 50% has to be
deducted as personal and living expenses. Reliance is
placed to the findings rendered by the Supreme Court in
paragraph 31 and 32 which is extracted for reference here.
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent(s) and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his
own income and will not be considered as a dependant
and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents
and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the family of
the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one -third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two -third."
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
21. On contrary the learned counsel for the
claimants relied on the decision of this court Padmavathi
and Others v. P.Kamalakshan and others [2019 (4)
KHC 777] and contended that the deduction of ½ (half) of
the income towards personal expenses is not an absolute
rule and in exceptional circumstances can be varied.
22. In National Insurance.Co.Ltd v Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] the Supreme Court held
that the deduction of personal expenses in accordance with
paragraph 31 and 32 of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), however, in
exceptional circumstances the same can be deviated.
23. In the present case a reading of the averments
in the claim petition in OPMV No.1361/2017 shows there
is a specific averment that the father of the deceased
Alphin George was depended upon him along with his
mother. Though the tribunal has rightly rejected the claim
of the siblings of the deceased and did not reckon them for
the purpose of calculating dependency compensation, this
court finds that in the light of the uncontroverted
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
averments in the application and as well as in the absence
of any contra evidence adduced on behalf of the insurance
company, the findings of the tribunal deducting 1/3 of the
amount towards personal expenses does not call for any
interference, since the father and mother were there as
claimant's 1 and 2.
24. Lastly it is contented by the learned counsel for the
insurance company has submitted that the age of the
deceased Amal Roy was 31 at the time of accident
therefore a multiplier of 16 ought to have been adopted.
The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the
deceased Amal Roy had not attained the age of 31 and
therefore the correct multiplier to be reckoned is that of
the age of 30. This court finds that this point is covered in
favour of the claimants in the decision of Meera P.O and
Another v. Ananda P. Naik and Others [2022 (1) KHC
591] and also in National Insurance Company
Limited, Kollam Vs Prashanth (died) [2024(6) KLT
509].
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
25. Before parting with this case this court also has
to take note of the last contention raised by the learned
counsel for the insurance company. While considering the
claim under OP (MV) No.1361/2017 the tribunal had
granted the 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium for
the claimants including the siblings of late Alphin George.
Though the said contention may prima facie appear to be
correct at the first blush, it is beyond any dispute that the
father and the mother are definitely entitled for the
compensation under the head loss of consortium. But
insofar as the siblings are concerned, they may not be
actually entitled for the benefit under the head loss of
consortium but they are definitely entitled for the
compensation under the head love and affection. This
principle has been reaffirmed by the learned single bench
of this court in P.Pramod Vs New India Assurance
Co.Ltd, on a close reading of the judgment in MACA
No.1975 of 2021, decided on 20.01.2025. This court
is in complete agreement with the views expressed by the
learned Single Bench in P.Pramod (supra). Therefore
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
even if it is assumed that the siblings are not entitled for
the compensation under the head loss of consortium, they
are definitely entitled for the benefit under the head of
love and affection and therefore to that extend no
interference is call for in the appeal preferred by the
insurance company.
26. As an upshot of the discussion as above this
court finds that MACA No.2577/2020 and 2954/2020 lacks
merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as
to cost. Coming to the MACA No.109/2021, in the light of
the findings above, the loss of compensation towards the
dependency as to be re worked accordingly. Therefore in
terms of the findings above the loss of dependency is
calculated as under.
a. Income re fixed at Rs.1,50,535/- with 40%
future prospectus is at Rs.2,10,749/-
b. loss of dependency : 2,10,749x12x17/2 =
2,14,96,398 - 1,19,17850/- = 95,78,548/-
c. Funeral expenses : 18000-15000 = 3000/-
2025:KER:28008
MACA Nos.109/2021, 2577/2020, 2954/2020
d. loss of estate : 18000-15000 = 3000/-
e. loss of consortium : 96,000 - 80,000 = 16,000/-
Thus the appellants are entitled for a total amount of
Rs.96,00,548/- (Ninety six lakhs five hundred and forty
eight only) as the enhanced compensation. The aforesaid
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from
07.10.2017 till realization with proportionate cost.
Insurance company shall deposit the amount within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy
of the judgment.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
Cak
