Kerala High Court
Abraham Issac vs Joswin on 20 May, 2025
2025:KER:34993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
MACA NO. 378 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2021 IN OPMV NO.646
OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABRAHAM ISSAC
AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.ISSAC ABRAHAM, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE,
APART NO.8D, SKYLINE STANFORD APARTMENT,
CHIDAMBARAMPADI BHAGOM, MANGANAM P.O.,
VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 018.
2 ALEYAMMA GEORGE
AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.ABRAHAM ISSAC, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE,
APARTMENT NO.8D, SKYLINE STANFORD APARTMENT,
CHIDAMBARAMPADI BHAGOM,MANGANAM P.O.,
VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 018.
3 DONA MARTIN ABRAHAM
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE,
APARTMENT NO.8D, SKYLINE STANFORD APARTMENT,
CHIDAMBARAMPADI BHAGOM, MANGANAM P.O.,
VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 018
BY ADVS.
K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
KOSHY GEORGE
LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSWIN
S/O.THAMBAN, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARK LANCE BHAGOM,
KODIMATHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM POST,
KOTTAYAM 686 001 (DRIVER).
MACA NO. 378 OF 2022 2
2025:KER:34993
2 AJITH
S/O.THAMBAN, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARK LANCE BHAGOM,
KODIMATHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM POST,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001(OWNER).
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, POLACHIRAKKAL
CHAMBERS,KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY ADVS.
RAMU P.S.
AKHIL K.MADHAV(K/936/2010)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
COME UP FOR HEARING ON 20.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 378 OF 2022 3
2025:KER:34993
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.646/2017 on the files of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of
the death of one Rojin K.Abraham, who died in a motor accident that
occurred on 14.06.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On 14.06.2015, at 12.30 a.m., while Sri.Rojin K. Abraham,
the deceased in this case, was traveling in a car bearing registration
No.KL-05-AE-2184, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner from Kumarakom to Kottayam and when reached
in front of Malabar Developers at Chalukkunnu Bhagom, the 1st
respondent applied the brake abruptly, which resulted in the skidding
of the car. The car then hit on a sand pile and overturned onto the
road. Due to the accident, Rojin sustained severe injuries.
Immediately after the accident, though the injured was rushed to
Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, and from there to Carithas
Hospital, Kottayam, on 27.06.2015, he succumbed to the injuries
while undergoing treatment.
3. The driver and owner of the car bearing registration
2025:KER:34993
No.KL-05-AE-2184 were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondents
respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said car was arrayed as 3rd
respondent. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a
written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation
awarded.
4. During trial, from the side of the petitioners, PW1 to PW4
were examined and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked. The documents
produced from the side of the respondents were marked as Exts. D1
and D2.
5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
car bearing registration No.KL-05-AE-2184 by the 1st respondent,
and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the
compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 22,51,930/-,
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the
petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the
said compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioners have
come up with this appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the
2025:KER:34993
main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the
quantum of compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal
under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to
compensate for the loss suffered by the bereaved family of the
deceased. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal erred in
assessing the monthly income of the deceased, reasonably
disregarding the fact that the deceased was having a brilliant
academic background and he was a holder of MBA degree. Per
contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, insurance
company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and hence warrants no
interference.
8. A perusal of the award reveals that for the purpose of
determining compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the
tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs. 10,000/-. In the petition, it was claimed that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was working as a Business Advisor in a
reputed firm and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/-.
Apart from making a bare averment in the petition, no convincing
2025:KER:34993
evidence was produced from the side of the petitioners to prove the
actual occupation and income of the deceased. Anyhow, by
producing Ext.A21 degree certificate, the petitioners succeeded in
proving that the deceased passed the MBA examination conducted in
the year 2011. Considering the academic background of the
deceased, I am of the view that the income of the deceased must
be assessed reasonably to compensate the petitioners adequately.
Therefore, considering the educational qualification of the deceased
and the year of the accident, I am of the view that the monthly
income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 15,000/-.
Admittedly, the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the
accident. Therefore, in view of the decision in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662], an addition
of 40% has to be made towards his future prospects. Hence, after
making such an addition, the monthly income of the deceased can
legally and reasonably be assessed at Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- +
Rs. 6,000/-).
9. As the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the
accident, 1/2 of the said income has to be deducted towards his
personal expenses. Resultantly, the income of the deceased can be
2025:KER:34993
fixed at Rs. 10,500/-. As the deceased was aged 29 at the time of
the accident, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier
to be reckoned is 17. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get an
amount of Rs. 21,42,000/- (Rs. 10,500 x 12 x 17) under the head
of loss of dependency. Already an amount of Rs. 14,68,800/-has
been awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of dependency.
After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled to get
an amount of Rs. 6,73,200/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventy three
thousand two hundred only) as additional compensation under the
said head.
10. Evidently, this is not a case of instantaneous death. The
deceased survived for 30 days after the accident with the serious
injuries sustained. The pain and sufferings endured by the deceased
prior to his death cannot be overlooked while awarding
compensation under the said head. Already an amount of Rs.
35,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal as compensation under
the said head. I am of the view that an additional amount of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) is to be awarded under the
head of pain and sufferings.
2025:KER:34993
11. Resultantly, an amount of Rs. 6,78,200/- (Rs. 6,73,200/-
+ Rs. 5,000/-) has to be added towards the total compensation
awarded by the tribunal.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the
appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs. 6,78,200/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventy eight thousand
two hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on
the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit. The 3rd respondent insurance company is ordered to
deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal
with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the
date of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
