[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Beena Varghese vs Antony on 10 February, 2026
2026:KER:11716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.02.2014 IN OPMV NO.1425
OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BEENA VARGHESE
W/O.LATE VARGHEE, CHETHALAN HOUSE, CHOWAKKA
DESOM, EAST CHALAKKUD VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY P.O.,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 JOEL VARGHESE
AGED 13 YEARS
S/O.LATE VARGHESE, MINOR,CHETHALAN HOUSE,
CHOWAKKA DESOM, EAST CHALAKKUD VILLAGE,
CHALAKKUDY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
3 SHANTO VARGHESE
AGED 10 YEARS
S/O.LATE VARGHESE, MINOR,CHETHALAN HOUSE,
CHOWAKKA DESOM, EAST CHALAKKUD VILLAGE,
CHALAKKUDY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
4 JOHN VARGHESE
AGED 8 YEARS
S/O.LATE VARGHESE, MINOR,CHETHALAN HOUSE,
CHOWAKKA DESOM, EAST CHALAKKUD VILLAGE,
CHALAKKUDY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.(MINORS REPRESENTED BY THIER NEXT
FIREND GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT).
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.V.BABY
2026:KER:11716
2
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANTONY
S/O.DEVASSY, MANJOORAN HOUSE, ELINGIPRA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 721.
2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CHALAKKUDY-680 307.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2026, THE COURT ON 10.02.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11716
3
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.
1425/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The
respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 03.09.2009 at
about 6.15 p.m., while the deceased Varghese was travelling
in a contract carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-07-AA-9237 through
Chalakkudy to Malakkapara road. When the vehicle reached
near Pathadipalam, the driver lost control, and the vehicle fell
into a ditch, 30 feet below the level of the road. As a result the
deceased sustained serious injuries, to which he succumbed.
The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased,
approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of
₹61,69,000/-, which was limited to ₹30,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent/owner filed a written
statement contending that the vehicle was insured for third-
party risk with a premium of ₹2,820/- covering 12 passengers
against a seating capacity of 13. It was also contended that
the vehicle had a valid permit and fitness certificate. The
second respondent/insurer admitted the insurance policy but
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
only subject to its terms and conditions. It contended that the
premium of ₹2,820/- covered risk for 12 passengers only, and
the alleged accident occurred due to overloading, which
violated the policy conditions. Before the tribunal, Pws 1 to 5
were examined, and Exts.A1 to A24 were marked. The
tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on
record, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,66,500/- with
interest @7.5% per annum against the second respondent,
being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who
are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants
claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-
Notional income:- The learned counsel for the
claimants mainly challenged the fixation of monthly income by
the tribunal. It was submitted that the deceased was aged 41
years and was working as a driver in Safario Trading Co.
L.L.C., Dubai. According to the claimants, the deceased was
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
drawing a salary of 5,000 Dirhams, equivalent to Indian
currency of ₹65,000/-. In order to support their contentions,
they relied on Exts. A21 and A23. Ext. A21 is the salary
certificate issued by the aforesaid company stating that the
deceased was employed with their company from February
2006 as driver-cum-sales executive, and he had gone for
vacation to Kerala on 10.08.2009 and thereafter met with an
accident on 03.09.2009. It is further stated in the certificate
that he was drawing an amount of 5,000 Dirhams, which is
equivalent to ₹65,000/-. Ext. A23 is a statement of accounts of
the Federal Bank Limited, Aluva Branch, which reflects that it
is an NRE account. The learned counsel also relied on the
deposition of PW2 and PW5, who are the wife of the deceased
and the Managing Director of the company, respectively. The
learned counsel also submitted that PW2 had testified before
the tribunal that her husband was working as a driver in
Dubai and was earning 5,000 Dirhams monthly. Moreover,
PW5 Managing Director of the company, also deposed that
the deceased had a monthly salary of AED 5000/-. The
learned counsel relying on Ext.A23, the statement of accounts
submitted that it reflects transactions from 01.01.2008 to
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
01.10.2009 and a considerable amount was remitted by the
deceased into his account maintained with the Federal Bank
Ltd., Aluva branch. Hence, it was argued that the claimant's
claim that the deceased was earning an amount of ₹65,000/-
is proved beyond doubt, and the fixation of the income by the
tribunal is not correct and is on the lower side. The learned
counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Maimmonammal Arif v. Ponnan M.A. [2025 KHC
6560], Gurpreet Kaur and Others v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. and Others [2022 (6) KHC 601],
and the judgment of this Court in M.A.C.A. No.1451 of 2021
in Rashida K.C. v. Thilakaraj C.V. and others [2024: KER:
86609] and submitted that there is nothing wrong in fixing
the income based on the statement of the accounts produced.
Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing
for the insurance company submitted that though PW5 was
examined, no document was produced to show that he was
the Managing Director of Safario Trading Co. L.L.C., Dubai.
Moreover, he was not the person who had issued Ext.A21, the
salary certificate, relied on by the appellant. Other than his
depositions, no supporting documents were produced by PW5
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
to prove his contentions. Hence, his testimony cannot be
relied upon. The learned standing counsel further submitted
that the passport copy was not produced to prove the
duration of service in Dubai. The learned standing counsel
also submitted that Ext.A21 is not an embassy attested
document, hence it cannot be accepted. Moreover, Ext.A23
does not reveal any continuous or regular payment made by
the deceased. Hence, the payment reflected in the statement
cannot be taken as a basis to decide the monthly income. It
was also stated that the accident was on 03.09.2009, and
from January 2009 onwards, as per the statement, only a
meager amount was transferred to his account. Hence, the
income fixed by the tribunal was reasonable for want of
evidence and does not require any interference by this Court.
I have considered the rival contentions raised by both
sides.
Admittedly, the accident occurred on 03.09.2009.
The documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellants regarding income are Exts. A21 and A23. Ext. A21
is a certificate issued by the Managing Director of Safario
Trading Co., L.L.C., Dubai. The certificate shows that the
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
deceased was employed with their company from February
2006 onwards as driver-cum-sales executive and had gone on
vacation to Kerala on 10.08.2009. Further, it was stated that
he was drawing 5,000 Dirhams per month, which is
equivalent to ₹65,000/- in Indian rupees. It is seen that the
certificate bears the signature of the Managing Director.
PW5, who is stated to be the Managing Director of the
company, was examined, and during cross-examination, he
had stated that the certificate was issued by the accountant
and that he had not signed the certificate. However, on a
perusal of the certificate, it is shown as "For Safario Trading
Co. L.L.C., Dubai, Managing Director." Moreover, the
certificate is not an Embassy-attested one. Placing reliance on
the said certificate in the afore circumstances are not
possible. Further, Ext. A23, the statement of accounts of
Federal Bank Ltd., Aluva Branch, does not reflect any regular
payments made into that account. On 11.01.2008, an amount
of ₹1,06,439/- was remitted to the said account through "Fed
Fast." Again, on 21.01.2008, an amount of ₹26,408/- was
remitted. During the month of April, an amount of ₹1,07,945/-
was deposited through "Fed Fast." Another ₹6,00,000/- was
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
deposited from 12th to 16th April, which appears to have been
paid towards some installments. On 17.05.2008, another
amount of ₹5,00,000/- was deposited towards installments. In
December 2008, a total of ₹46,000/- was deposited in the
account through "Fed Fast." In January 2009 and April 2009,
a total of ₹30,000/- was deposited. No considerable amounts
were deposited into the account in the year 2009.
In the judgment of the Apex Court in Maimmonammal
Arif (supra), relied on by the learned counsel, there was
regular remittance of ₹30,000/- sent to the family every
month. In Gurpreet Kaur (supra), also relied upon by the
learned counsel, there was a regular monthly repayment of a
loan amount of ₹25,000/- by the deceased. There was also a
regular loan payment of ₹10,700/- in the account of the
deceased, in Rashida (supra), relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellants. As far as the present case is
concerned, it cannot be said that there was a regular payment
of any amount in Ext.A23, relied on by the appellants.
Moreover, during the year 2009, only a very meagre amount
was sent to his account. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that since an amount of ₹5,00,000/- was
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
paid in May 2008, there was no necessity for the deceased to
remit further amounts to his account. However, the statement
of accounts itself reflects that those payments were made for
clearing some loan dues. During the year 2009, upto
September, no amount other than ₹30,000/- was remitted to
his account. Hence, this Court finds that Ext.A23 is not
sufficient enough to fix the income of the deceased. Other
than the depositions of PW2 and PW5, there is nothing on
record to prove his income. Since he was aged 41 years and
was working abroad as a driver, and also considering the
remittances to India as reflected in Ext.A23, during the year
2009, I find it appropriate to conclude that an amount of
₹15,000/- can be fixed as the monthly income after setting
apart amount towards personal expenses. Accordingly, I fix
the monthly income at ₹15,000/-, after deductions towards
personal expenses. Since the deceased was aged 41 years, by
adding 25% future prospects as per National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], to the income
now fixed, the amount will be ₹18,750/- for awarding
compensation under the head loss of dependency.
Loss of dependency:- Since the notional income
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
along with personal deductions and after adding future
prospects is re-fixed as ₹15,625/-, following the judgments in
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation
payable under the head loss of dependency is re-calculated
thus as: (18,750 x 12 x 14) ₹31,50,000/-. The tribunal has
awarded an amount of ₹6,30,000/- under the head loss of
dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of
₹25,20,000/- under the said head.
Funeral expenses:- Towards the head funeral
expenses, the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹25,000/-.
Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that
the claimants are entitled only to an amount of ₹15,000/-
towards funeral expenses. Therefore, there will be a
deduction of ₹10,000/- under the afore head.
Loss of estate:- Towards the head loss of estate, it
is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of
₹10,000/-, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that, going by the judgment in
Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled for a total
compensation ₹15,000/- under the afore head. It is also
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
submitted that, following Pranay Sethi (supra), a further
10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years
from 2017, totalling to ₹18,150/-. Since the tribunal has
awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/-, there will be an
additional amount of ₹8,150/- under the afore head.
Loss of consortium/ Loss of love and affection:-
On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the legal heirs were
four in number. The learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that towards loss of consortium, the tribunal has
awarded only an amount of ₹1,00,000/-. Following the
judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Pranay Sethi
[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], I find that the legal heirs will be
entitled to get a total amount of ₹1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4). The
learned standing counsel for the insurance company
submitted that towards loss of love and affection, the tribunal
has awarded an amount of ₹50,000/-, which amount s to
duplication. Considering the afore two heads, after adjusting
the compensation for loss of love and affection towards loss of
consortium, I find that there will be an additional amount of
₹10,000/- granted under the head loss of consortium.
6. It is submitted before this court that the
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
insurer had paid the entire amount awarded by the tribunal to
the claimants. Though the appellants/claimants claimed
enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a
perusal of the records available, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal
under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable.
Since the appeal is of the year 2014, I find it appropriate to fix
the interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount.
7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is
modified as follows:-
Sl.
No Head of Amount Amount Modified Total
Claim claimed awarded by in appeal compensation
the tribunal
1 Transport to Not
3,000 1,000 1,000
hospital modified
2 Damage to Not
clothing modified
3 Funeral
15,000 25,000 10,000(-) 15,000
expenses
4 Pain and Not
50,000 50,000 50,000
suffering modified
5 Loss of
50,00,000 6,30,000 25,20,000 31,50,000
dependency
Loss of
6 expectation 2,00,000 Nil Nil Nil
of life
7 1,00,000 1,60,000
Loss of 1,00,000 10,000
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
consortium
Loss of love
and 2,00,000 50,000
affection
Shock and
8 50,000 Nil Nil Nil
anxiety
Loss of
9 5,00,000 10,000 8,150 18,150
estate
61,69,000
TOTAL limited to 8,66,500 25,28,150 33,94,650
30,00,000
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, and the
appellants/claimants are awarded an additional compensation
of ₹25,28,150/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Eight
Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) over and above the
compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization and
proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the
said amount together with interest and costs within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN
Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent
insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the
insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In
case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for
2026:KER:11716
MACA NO. 1575 OF 2014
the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the
tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount
shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
STB
