Kerala High Court
Prabha vs Prasanth on 7 March, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 1263.of 2022 :1:
2025:KER:19357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 1263 OF 2022
AWARD DATED 19.01.2022 IN OP(MV) NO.294 OF 2019 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 PRABHA, AGED 65 YEARS
WIDOW, W/O. RAJAN, THEKKEMENOKKIL HOUSE, KALLOOR DESOM,
KALLUR ,VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, ANNAMANADA P.O, CHALAKUDY
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 741.
2 PRASANTH MENOKIL RAJAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAJAN, THEKKEMENOKKIL HOUSE, KALLOOR DESOM, KALLUR
VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, ANNAMANADA P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 741.
3 PREETHI M R., AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O. E NALINAKSHAN,(D/O. LATE RAJAN), ERIYATTU HOUSE,
KONATHUKUNNU DESOM AND P.O, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 123, NOW
RESIDING AT THEKKEMENOKKIL HOUSE, KALLOOR DESOM, KALLUR
VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, ANNAMANADA P.O, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680 741.
BY ADVS.
SRI. A.R.NIMOD
SRI. M.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
PRASANTH, S/O. PAPPUTTAN, NADUVILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALATHUR
DESOM VILLAGE AND P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 741.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON 07.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 1263.of 2022 :2:
2025:KER:19357
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 1263 of 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 294 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajan, who
died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on
09.01.2019, while the deceased was walking by the side of the road,
motorcycle ridden by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner
caused to hit the deceased and thereby, he sustained fatal injuries and
subsequently, succumbed to his injuries on 20.1.2019. The respondent
is also the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent was ex parte and from the
side of the petitioners, Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked. The Tribunal
arrived at a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence
on the part of the respondent and that the respondent is liable to pay
2025:KER:19357
compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.12,85,200/- to the petitioners.
4. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel for the appellants.
In spite of service of notice, the respondent remained ex parte in the
appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
deceased was aged 69 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by
conducting a grocery shop. The Tribunal fixed a notional income of
Rs.12,000/- on the ground that there is no acceptable evidence to prove
the income. The decision of the Hon'ble 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] 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 calculated by
2025:KER:19357
adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.12,000/-, as the accident
occurred in the year 2019.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that Exhibits
A14 and A15 would show that the deceased was conducting a grocery
shop and in the absence of any serious dispute regarding the occupation
of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have fixed a higher amount as
notional income. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the
view that a national income of Rs.14,000/- per month can be fixed for
the purpose of calculating the compensation.
7. The Tribunal accepted 5 as the multiplier applicable and
deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased by following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court
in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802
(SC)]. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are sons of the deceased aged 39
and 37 years and therefore, only the 1 st petitioner--wife of the deceased
was considered as dependent and I find no reason to interfere with the
said findings of the Tribunal. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation
for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would
2025:KER:19357
come to Rs.4,20,000/- [14000 x 12 x 5 x ½]. The Tribunal has already
granted Rs.3,60,000/- under this head. Therefore, an additional
compensation of Rs.60,000/- is granted to the appellants towards loss of
dependency.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the accident
was on 09.01.2019 and the death was on 20.01.2019 and the Tribunal
has not granted any compensation towards pain and sufferings of the
deceased. Section 2 of the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
1976 shows that the right to sue for compensation for pain and suffering
would survive upon the legal heirs, if the injured died at a later point of
time.
9. In Jyni and Others v. Raphel P. T. and Others [2016 (2)
KHC 870], a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
36. Death in an accident is generally the result of violent impact
on the body resulting in serious injuries causing severe pain. The
magnitude of the ordeal may vary from case to case depending
upon the nature of injuries sustained. In cases of instantaneous
deaths also pain and suffering is invariably present, as in the case
of survival for hours or days. In cases of instantaneous death as
well as cases where the deceased was unconscious between the
time of accident and the time of his death, some notional amount
2025:KER:19357
is payable under the head pain and suffering. A slightly higher
amount can be awarded under this head, if the death is not
instantaneous. Therefore, a conventional amount in the range of
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- could be awarded under the head pain
and suffering in such cases. In the instant case, the deceased
succumbed to injuries on the date of accident itself. In such
circumstances, Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head
pain and suffering represents just and reasonable compensation,
which requires no enhancement in this appeal."
In view of the above legal position, I find that an additional
compensation of Rs.15,000/- can be granted to the appellants under the
head pain and sufferings of the deceased. I find that the compensation
granted by the Tribunal under other heads are reasonable and requires
no interference.
10. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation as given below:
Additional
amount
Compensation granted by
Particulars awarded by the this Court
Tribunal (Rs.) (Rs.)
60,000/-
Loss of dependency 3,60,000/-
15,000/-
Pain and sufferings NIL
Total enhanced compensation 75,000/-
2025:KER:19357
11. Thus, a total amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Thousand only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
application till realization. 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
