Kerala High Court
Sreeja.M vs Najeeb.M.P on 8 September, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.1015 of 2020
1
2025:KER:66629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 1015 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.10.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.641/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.
APPELLANTS:
1 SREEJA M.,
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O.LATE SURESH, CHAKKUTHODI HOUSE,
CHEMBRA P.O., THIRUVEGAPURA,
CHEMBRA, PALAKKAD PIN-679 304.
2 AKHIL S.,
AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SURESH, CHAKKUTHODI HOUSE,
CHEMBRA, THIRUVEGAPURA,
CHEMMBRA, PALAKKAD PIN-679 304.
3 (MINOR) ARDRA S.,
AGED 15 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SURESH, CHAKKUTHODI HOUSE,
P.O. CHAMBRA, THIRUVEGAPURA,
CHEMMBRA, PALAKKAD PIN-679 304.(3RD MINOR PETITIONER
IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST PETITIONER
SREEJA M. 40 YEARS, W/O.LATE SURESH, CHAKKUTHODI
HOUSE, P.O. CHEMBRA, THIRUVEGAPURA, CHEMMBRA,
PALAKKAD PIN-679 304.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
M.A.C.A.No.1015 of 2020
2
2025:KER:66629
RESPONDENTS:
1 NAJEEB M.P.,
S/O.PAREED.M.M, 2/1060, MEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KALAVATHY LANE NO.6, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 001(OWNER OF KL-43-C-3795
NUMBERED LORRY)
2 ABDUL AZIZ,
S/O.MUHAMMED, HOUSE NO.4/437,
NALAKATH MALIYEKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-682 002
(D/L NO.7/697/1985 VALID FROM 5/6/2015 TO 4/6/20
(DRIVER OF KL-43-C-3795 NUMBERED LORRY)
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BANK OF BARODA BUILDING, PALACE ROAD,
ANAVATHIL, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 002, REP BY BRANCH
MANAGER. POLICY NO.1002013116P113020723
VALID FROM 3/1/2017 TO 2/1/2018
(INSURER OF KL-43-C-3795 NUMBERED LORRY).
BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.1015 of 2020
3
2025:KER:66629
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1015 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of September 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV)
No.641/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Ottapalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation
granted by Award dated 16/10/2019. The respondents herein are the
respondents in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the
documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. The claim petitioners are the wife and two children
of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 13/06/2017 at
about 08:30 a.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing
registration no. KL-55/Q-3667 through Valanchery-Koppam public
road and when he reached the place by name Naduvattom, lorry
bearing registration no.KL-43/C-3795 driven by the second
2025:KER:66629
respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his vehicle,
as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he
succumbed. An amount of ₹40,00,000/- was claimed as compensation
under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy but denying liability. The age, occupation and
monthly income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount
claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined
and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners.
No oral or documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence
on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending lorry
resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹12,95,000/-
together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition
2025:KER:66629
till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by
the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal
calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under
the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioners -
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner
that the deceased, a 43 year old tile contractor was earning ₹25,000/-
per month. To substantiate the same, the first claim petitioner
examined herself as PW1 and one of the employees of the deceased as
PW2. However, the Tribunal ignoring the testimony of the said
witnesses, fixed the notional income at ₹8,000/- which is quite low
and hence, the same needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it
is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer
that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and
2025:KER:66629
if at all the Court is inclined to enhance the notional income, the same
may be fixed as per the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.
9.1. The claim petitioners in order to substantiate their
claim regarding the income of the deceased, examined PW1 and PW2.
PW2, one of the employees of the deceased testified that he was being
paid ₹900/- per day by the deceased, his employer. According to the
claim petitioners, the deceased had availed a car loan and was
repaying the loan by payment of monthly installments at the rate of
₹8,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the same, they rely on
Ext.A9. On going through Ext.A9, I find that the entries are after the
date of the accident, which was on 13/06/2017. However, going by
the minimum wages of workers in the construction industry as per
G.O.(P) No.71/2019/LBR dated 29/07/2019, the daily wages is ₹890/-
per day. The accident occurred on 13/06/2017, that is, 2 years before
the notification. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case, I
find that the daily wages can be taken as ₹630/- in the year 2017 and
hence, the notional income for a period of 26 days can be taken.
2025:KER:66629
Hence the notional income is fixed at ₹630/-x 26 days= ₹16,380/-.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1 Transport to ₹50,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/-
hospital (No modification)
2 Damage to ₹10,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
3 Extra ₹10,000/- -- --
nourishment (No modification)
expenses
4 Funeral ₹50,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
expenses (No modification)
5 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- -- --
for pain and (No modification)
suffering
6 Compensation ₹25,00,000/- ₹11,20,000/- ₹22,93,200/-
for loss of (₹16,380/-+25% of
dependency ₹16,380/-)x12x14x
7 Compensation ₹10,00,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
for loss of estate (No modification)
8 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/-
for loss of (No modification)
consortium
9 Compensation ₹3,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
for loss of love (No modification)
and affection
Total ₹42,20,000/- ₹12,95,000/- ₹24,68,200/-
(Limited to
40,00,000/-)
2025:KER:66629
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹11,73,200/- (total compensation
= ₹24,68,200/-, that is, ₹12,95,000/- granted by the Tribunal +
₹11,73,200/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the
period of 37 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs.
The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation
with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the
compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the
claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making
deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
