Kerala High Court
Vaishnavi vs S.Sivakumar on 24 March, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 3134/2020 :1:
2025:KER:24725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 3134 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 IN O.P(MV) NO.2027 OF 2017 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS:
1 VAISHNAVI, AGED 29 YEARS,
W/O. LATE NAVEENKUMAR, CHADAYAN COLONY, CHANDRAPURAM
POST, PUDUSSERY EAST, PALAKKAD.
2 NAMANA (MINOR), AGED 11 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER VAISHNAVI, AGED 30 YEARS,
W/O. LATE NAVEENKUMAR, CHADAYAN COLONY, CHANDRAPURAM
POST, PUDUSSERY EAST, PALAKKAD.
3 DHIYA (MINOR),
AGED 7 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER VAISHNAVI, AGED 30 YEARS,
W/O. LATE NAVEENKUMAR, CHADAYAN COLONY, CHANDRAPURAM
POST, PUDUSSERY EAST, PALAKKAD.
4 SAROJINI, AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.RAMASWAMY, CHADAYAN COLONY, CHANDRAPURAM POST,
PUDUSSERY EAST, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI. SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS:
1 S.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.SELLAPPAN, 12/5, STATE BANK COLONY, METTUR
DAM, SALEM, TAMILNADU, 636 401.
2 KRISHNAN R.,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.RAMASWANY DEVAR, 2/1025, KUTHIRAIKALMEDU,
KADAPPANALLUR POST, BHAVANI TALUK, ERODE,
M.A.C.A. No. 3134/2020 :2:
2025:KER:24725
TAMILNADU - 638 301.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SALEM MAIN ROAD, PUDUCHAMPALLI, RAMAN NAGAR, METTUR DAM,
SALEM, TAMILNADU-636 401,
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IIIRD FLOOR, MALABAR FORT COMPLEX, KANDATH
COMPLEX, OFF- G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 014, REP. BY MANAGER.
BY ADV. SRI. P.K.MANOJKUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 3134/2020 :3:
2025:KER:24725
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 3134 of 2020
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 2027 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 representatives of late Naven
Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the
petitioners, on 14.09.2017, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle,
lorry driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner
caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, the deceased sustained
serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries, while
undergoing treatment in the hospital.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the
3rd respondent is the insurer.
4. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked from the
side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced from the side of the
2025:KER:24725
respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred
only because of the negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent and
that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. The Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.18,32,800/- to the petitioners.
5. Heard Sri. Sajan Varghese, the learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri. P. K. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the
respondent insurance company.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
deceased was aged 32 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the
time of the accident and for the reason that no evidence is adduced to
prove the monthly income, the Tribunal fixed only a notional income of
Rs.8,000/- and the same is on the lower side.
7. 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 =
2025:KER:24725
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
adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.11,000/-, as the accident
occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, I find that it is only reasonable to
fix the monthly notional income as Rs.11,000/- for the purpose of
calculating the compensation.
8. As per the principles laid down by 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], the Tribunal made
an addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects.
The Tribunal accepted '16' as the multiplier applicable and deducted one-
fourth 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)].
2025:KER:24725
9. Thus, while reassessing the compensation for loss of
dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to
Rs.22,17,600/- [(11000 + 40%) x ¾ x 12 x 16]. The Tribunal has
already granted Rs.16,12,800/- towards loss of dependency and
therefore, the appellants are granted an additional compensation of
Rs.6,04,800/- towards loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the
appellants has not raised any challenge with respect to the
compensation fixed by the Tribunal under other heads.
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.)
Loss of dependency
16,12,800/- 6,04,800/-
Total enhanced compensation
6,04,800/-
11. Thus, a total amount of Rs.6,04,800/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Four
Thousand Eight Hundred only) is awarded as enhanced compensation.
2025:KER:24725
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 52 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
