[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Smt.Annamma Philip vs Thangaraj Prabhu on 12 February, 2026
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
1
2026:KER:11152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1789 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.2446 OF 2006
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT :-
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOCHI, REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR OMANA BUILDINGS, PADMA JN, MG ROAD, KCHI-35.
BY ADV SHRI.A.R.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN THE O.P :-
1 SMT. ANNAMMA PHILIP
W/O.LATE PHILIP, THOMMIKKATTIL HOUSE,
PALLIKKANDAM P.O.KOOTALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 652.
2 JIJI PHILIP
S/O.LATE PHILIP, -DO- -DO-
3 SHIBU PHILIO
S/O.LATE PHILIP, -DO- -DO-
BY ADV SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.02.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.203/2014, 1776/2014, THE
COURT ON 12.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2
2026:KER:11152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 203 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.1789 OF 2006
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 SMT.ANNAMMA PHILIP, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.LATE PHILIP,
2 JIJI PHILIP, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE PHILIP
3 SHIBU PHILIP, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIP,ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THOMMIKKATTIL HOUSE, PALLIKKANDAM, PO KOOTALA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 THANGARAJ PRABHU
S/O.PONNUSWAMY GOUNDER, RESIDING AT S.L.VIHAR,
PARAKKAL THEKKE DESOM PO, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD 678 101
2 KANNAN, S/O.CHAMMI, RESIDING AT PUNCHKKODE HOUSE,
MANJALOOR DESOM, PO KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD 678 702.
3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PALAKKAD 678 702
BY ADV SHRI.A.R.GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.02.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.1789/2014 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
3
2026:KER:11152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1776 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.1789 OF
2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT :-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDINGS, PADMA JN.,
MG ROAD, KOCHI - 35.
BY ADV SHRI.A.R.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS IN THE OP :-
1 SMT.ANNAMMA PHILIP
W/O.LATE PHILIP, THOMMAIKKATTIL HOUSE,
PALLIKKANDAM, P.O.KOOTALA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 652.
2 JIJI PHILIP
S/O.LATE PHILIP, -DO- -DO-
3 SHIBU PHILIP
S/O.LATE PHILIP, -DO- -DO-
BY ADV SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.02.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.1789/2014 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
4
2026:KER:11152
JUDGMENT
MACA Nos.203 of 2014 and 1776 of 2014 arise from the very
same award dated 31.05.2013 in O.P.(MV) No.1789 of 2006 on the
files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, a petition
filed for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased.
MACA No.1789 of 2014 arise from O.P(MV) No.2446 of 2006
dated 31.05.2013, a petition filed for the damages caused on the
motorcycle. Since these appeals arise from the same cause of
action, they are heard together and are disposed of by this
judgment.
2. M.A.C.A.Nos.1776 & 1789 of 2014 are filed by the 3 rd
respondent/insurance company challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded for the injuries as well as the
compensation for the damages sustained to the motorcycle, where
as MACA No.203 of 2014 is filed by the claimants, who are the
legal heirs of the deceased, seeking enhancement of
compensation.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:
On 17.06.2006 at about 11.00 am, while the deceased was
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-11/T 5394, a lorry
bearing reg. No. KL-9/N 949, driven by the 2 nd respondent in a
rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result
of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and
succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, who
are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal in
OP(MV) 1789 of 2006, claiming a total compensation of
₹3,78,000/- rounded to ₹3,70,000/- for the death of the deceased
whereas the claimants in OP(MV) 2446 of 2006, approached the
tribunal claiming compensation for the damages caused to the
motorcycle.
4. The first and second respondents, the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The
3rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the
policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and
denying negligence. Before the tribunal RW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A10, Exts.X1(a) to X1(c) and Ext.B1 to B4 were
marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and
materials on record, in OP(MV) 1789/2006, awarded a sum of
₹2,70,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest
@8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
proportionate costs and in OP(MV) 2446/2006, awarded a sum of
₹12,000/- as compensation for damages caused to the bike with
interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization
with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the
insurer.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the
learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.
6. The insurance company mainly filed the appeal
challenging the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of
the lorry alone. According to the learned standing counsel
appearing for the insurance company there was contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle/deceased in
causing the accident. The deceased, Philip, while entering the
National Highway, proceeded from south to east without
exercising due care or caution. According to the learned Standing
Counsel, the lorry was proceeding in its proper direction from
west to east, keeping its northern side on the road, which is its
correct side. The two-wheeler ridden by the deceased took a
tangential turn and entered the National Highway without noticing
the lorry moving on the northern side. The two-wheeler collided
with the lateral front portion of the lorry, as a result of which the
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
deceased was thrown towards the rear portion of the lorry and the
rear wheel ran over his body. Owing to the injuries sustained in
the accident, he succumbed to the same. The learned Standing
Counsel further submitted that the lorry did not hit the two-
wheeler from the rear; on the contrary, it was the two-wheeler
that collided with the lateral front portion of the lorry.
7. The other contention raised by the learned Standing
Counsel is that two FIRs were registered in the present case.
Initially, the first FIR was registered attributing negligence on the
deceased, whereas the second FIR was registered alleging
negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. According to him,
there ought not to have been two FIRs; even assuming that two
FIRs were registered, the Investigating Officer should have filed
the charge sheet against both the rider of the two-wheeler and the
driver of the lorry. However, Ext.A6 charge sheet was filed
against the driver of the lorry alone, which, according to the
learned Standing Counsel, is incorrect. The learned Standing
Counsel for the insurance company relied on the evidence of RW1-
the Investigating Officer, Ext.A3 scene mahazar, Ext.A4 AMVI
report and Ext.B2 scene mahazar. It is further submitted that in
the FIS given by the eyewitness, Thomas, it was stated that the
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
accident occurred due to the negligence of both the rider of the
motorcycle and the driver of the lorry. Hence, the learned counsel
argued that the Tribunal ought to have found contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler as well.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that the Tribunal had considered the issue in detail and
found that there was no evidence to attribute any contributory
negligence to the deceased. It was further submitted that although
two FIRs were registered, after investigation the final charge
sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry. It was also submitted
that neither the owner nor the driver of the lorry had contested
the charge sheet drawn against them. Moreover, though the
evidence of RW1 was adduced, nothing could be brought out in
support of the contention raised by the insurance company.
According to the learned counsel, the accident occurred due to the
sole negligence of the driver of the lorry, who drove the vehicle at
a high speed without noticing the two-wheeler coming from the
south, which had already covered nearly two-thirds of the road on
the northern side. The learned counsel relied on Ext.A3 scene
mahazar and Ext.A6 charge sheet and submitted that both the
scene mahazar and the charge sheet were drawn in favour of the
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
deceased and there is no reason to find any contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased.
9. In the award passed by the Tribunal, the issue has been
dealt with at length. Admittedly, the deceased was entering the
highway from south to north and the lorry, which was proceeding
from west to east, hit the two-wheeler and thereby the accident
occurred. Ext.A1 FIR was produced by the claimants and Ext.B1
FIR was produced by the insurance company. In Ext.A1 FIR,
negligence was attributed against the driver of the lorry, whereas
in Ext.B1 FIR, negligence was attributed to the rider of the two-
wheeler. Since two FIRs were registered, the tribunal called for
Ext.X1 case diary in respect of the incident. Ext.X1 case diary
contained a sketch to show the place of occurrence. Both the FIRs
were registered on the basis of the FI statement given by the same
person. However, the insurance company failed to examine
Thomas, who had given the FIS. The learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the insurance company submitted that they had filed
a petition seeking permission to examine the witnesses. However,
the tribunal did not allow the said petition. On a perusal of the
award, it is seen that the tribunal has given valid reasons for not
permitting the insurance company to adduce further evidence. It is
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
stated in the award that sufficient time was granted to the
insurance company. However, after completion of the evidence,
they again sought time. Even then the insurance company was
permitted to reopen the evidence and adduce further evidence
however, no application was filed. Subsequently, after the
evidence was finally closed, another IA was filed seeking to reopen
the evidence, which was not allowed. The tribunal has stated
satisfactory reasons for not allowing the subsequent IA filed by the
insurance company and therefore, I do not find any fault on the
part of the tribunal.
10. Since contributory negligence was alleged by the
insurance company, burden was on the part of the insurance
company to challenge Ext.A6 charge sheet. For that purpose,
though the investigating officer was examined as RW1, nothing
was brought out by the insurance company to contradict the
charge sheet. RW1 also stated that though two FIRs were
registered, he had not signed both FIRs and that only Ext.A1 FIR
was signed by him. He further deposed that, after proper
investigation, the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the
lorry.
11. The lorry, which was coming from behind, could very
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
well have seen the two-wheeler entering the highway and the two
wheeler having almost crossed 2/3rd of the highway towards the
north, had the lorry been driven at a normal speed, the accident
could have been avoided. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pazhaniammal and Others [2012 ACJ 1370], it was held that
when a charge sheet is filed against the accused by the police
after due investigation, the tribunal is entitled to accept the same.
If the Tribunal finds the charge sheet to be suspicious or collusive,
or if any of the parties do not accept it, appropriate procedures for
the production of evidence may be adopted. Here Ext.A6 is the
charge sheet. Though the Investigating Officer was examined as
RW1, the insurance company failed to bring out any positive
evidence in the cross-examination to substantiate their
contentions. The tribunal has considered the aforesaid issue in
detail and found that the negligence was on the part of the driver
of the lorry. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said
finding. Accordingly, MACA Nos.1789 & 1776 of 2014, the appeals
filed by the insurance company are liable to be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for the claimants in MACA No.203
of 2014 is mainly claiming enhancement of the award under the
following heads :-
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹6,000/-
was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/- as
the monthly income of the deceased who was a Pastor. The
learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, as per
the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236],
the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2006 is fixed at
₹5,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of
monthly income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa
(supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is
appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹5,500/-.
Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the
monthly income is fixed at ₹5,500/, the compensation payable
under the said head is recalculated as thus: ₹3,08,000/-
(5500x12x7x2/3). The tribunal has already paid an amount of
₹1,96,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional
amount of ₹1,12,000/- under the head loss of dependency.
Compensation for funeral expenses and estate:- The
learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has
awarded only an amount of ₹5,000/- each towards loss of estate
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
and funeral expenses. Following the judgment in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662
(SC)], the compensation under the conventional heads ought to
have been fixed at ₹15,000/- each and further, 10% enhancement
has to be given in every three years after 2017. Thus, following the
judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award
the appellants a total compensation of ₹18,150/- each under the
head funeral expenses. Accordingly, there shall be an additional
amount of ₹13,150/- each under the head loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
Compensation for loss of consortium/Loss of love and
affection :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that towards loss of consortium, the tribunal has
awarded ₹25,000/-. I find that following the judgment in Pranay
Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled for an amount of
₹40,000/- each and further enhancement of 10% in a span of three
years. Accordingly, the compensation payable under the head loss
of consortium is ₹1,45,200/- (48,400x3). Therefore, the appellants
are entitled to get an additional amount of ₹1,20,200/-.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance
submitted that the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹25,000/-
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
towards loss of love and affection, which is against the principle
laid down in the judgment in New India Assurance Company v.
Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1198 (SC)], wherein
it has been held that once compensation is awarded under the
head loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded under the
head loss of love and affection, as it would amount to duplication
of compensation. Hence I am inclined to delete ₹25,000/-
awarded under the said head.
13. On a perusal of the award and records available, I am not
inclined 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 @7% per annum on the enhanced
amount.
14. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as
follows:
Sl.
No Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified in Total
claimed awarded by appeal compensation
the tribunal
1. Funeral expenses 10,000 5,000 13,150 18,150
2. Transportation 2,000 4,000 (not modified) 4,000
expenses
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
3. Pain and suffering 15,000 10,000 (not modified) 10,000
4. Loss on dependency 2,40,000 1,96,000 1,12,000 3,08,000
5. Loss on estate 20,000 5,000 13,150 18,150
6. Loss of love and 20,000 25,000 25,000 (-) deleted
affection
7. Loss on consortium 20,000 25,000 1,20,200 1,45,200
TOTAL 3,78,000 2,70,000 2,33,500 5,03,500
Limited to 3,70,000
Accordingly,
1) MACA Nos.1776 of 2014 & 1789 of 2014, filed by the
insurance company stands dismissed.
2) MACA No.203 of 2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in
part and the claimants are awarded an additional amount of
₹2,33,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty three thousand five
hundred only) as compensation over and above the
compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @7%
per annum from the date of petition till realization and
proportionate costs from the 3rd respondent/insurer. 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
claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR
Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within
MACA NOs. 203, 1776 & 1789 OF 2014
2026:KER:11152
a period of one month so as to enable the respondent
insurer to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of
failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the
respondent insurer to deposit the said amount before the
tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount
shall be disbursed to the claimants at the earliest in
accordance with law.
3) The ratio adopted by the tribunal regarding the
apportionment of the compensation amount shall be
followed in respect of the enhanced compensation as well.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SMA
