[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nirmala vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 12 January, 2026
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :1: 2026:KER:1781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.08.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.57 OF 2013 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NIRMALA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.KUNCHA,
W/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN, KORAMPULLY VEEDU,
KARIPPALI P.O.,PATTANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 678 504.
2 VISHNU, AGED 19 YEARS,S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN,
KORAMPULLY VEEDU, KARIPPALI P.O.,
PATTANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 678 504.
3 SUMA U (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN,
D O B - 07/12/2002, REP BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND,
NIRMALA THE 1ST PETITIONER, KORAMPULLY VEEDU,
KARIPPALI P.O., PATTANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 678 504.
4 MEENAKSHMI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.MANIKKAN, MAMBALLAM,
MUTHALAMADA POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
KERALA - 678 507.
BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :2: 2026:KER:1781
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SEEMA BUILDING,
G H ROAD, OPP KOTTAPARAMBA HOSPITAL, PALAYAM P.O.,
CALICUT - 673 574. (INSURER OF BUS BEARING
REG.NO.KL-56-B-1566) POLICY NO.441000/31/2012/3004
(VALID FROM 05/08/2011 TO 04/08/2012).
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :3: 2026:KER:1781
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in OP(MV) No.57/2013 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad have preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
tribunal on account of the death of Unnikrishnan in a motor
accident that occurred on 06.07.2012.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on 06.07.2012 at
about 8 p.m., while Sri.Unnikrishnan was travelling in an
autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL/57/E/3278 as a passenger and
reached at P.C.Mukku in Thamarassery-Balussery State Highway,
a bus bearing Reg.No.KL/56/B/1566 driven by the 2 nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the auto
rickshaw. Due to the impact of the hit, Unnikrishnan sustained
fatal injuries and he died at the spot.
3. The registered owner and driver of the offending bus
bearing Reg.No.KL-56/B-1566 and owner-cum-driver of auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-57/E-3278 were arrayed as the 1 st,
2nd and 4th respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the
bus was arrayed as the 3rd respondent.
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :4: 2026:KER:1781
4. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a
written statement mainly disputing the quantum of
compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for
the bus involved in the accident.
5. During trial, the documents produced from the side
of the petitioners were marked as Ext.A1 to A20. From the side
of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.
6. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
the bus by the 2nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd
respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The
compensation was quantified at Rs.11,85,000/- with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of
realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said
compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this
appeal.
7. I heard Sri.Baby Mathew, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned standing counsel for
the respondent insurance company.
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :5: 2026:KER:1781
8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads
is too meagre and will not commensurate with the actual loss
and damages incurred by the petitioners due to the accident.
According to the counsel, the tribunal grossly erred in assessing
the income of the deceased reasonably and consequently
awarded only a meagre amount as compensation under the
head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for
the respondent insurance company submitted that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every
head is just, fair, reasonable and adequate and hence warrants
no interference.
9. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that
the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect
to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under
various heads, particularly, under the head of loss of
dependency. As evident from the impugned award for the
purpose of determining the compensation under the head of loss
of dependency, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.7,500/-. In the petition, it is averred that the
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :6: 2026:KER:1781
deceased was a manual labourer earning a monthly income of
Rs.12,500/- at the time of the accident. As evident from the
records, apart from raising such a contention in the petition, no
documentary evidence, whatsoever, has been produced from the
side of the petitioners to substantiate their contentions
regarding the occupation and income of the deceased.
Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident occurred in the year
2012. Therefore, having regard to the year of accident and
applying the principles laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v.Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13
SCC 236], the tribunal ought have assessed the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.8,500/-.
10. Likewise, the deceased was aged 41 years at the
time of the accident. Therefore in view of he decisions in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017
(4) KLT 662 (SC)], an addition of 25% has to be made to the
actual income of the deceased towards his future prospects.
However, the Tribunal omitted to make such an addition in terms
of the law laid down in the above said decision. Hence, after
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :7: 2026:KER:1781
making an addition of 25% to the actual income of the deceased,
towards future prospects his income will come to Rs.10,625/-
11. As the total number of dependents is four. 1/4 th of
the income of the deceased (i.e.Rs.2,656/-) has to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. After deducting the said
amount, the monthly income of the deceased can be legally
assessed at Rs.7969/- (10625-2656).
12. As the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of
the accident and in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the
multiplier applicable in this case is 14. Hence, the petitioners
are found entitled to get an amount of Rs.13,38,792
(Rs.7969X12x14) as compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. Already an amount of Rs.9,45,000/- has been
awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the
said amount, the petitioners are found entitled to get an amount
of Rs.3,93,792/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Three
Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Two only) as
additional compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :8: 2026:KER:1781
13. As evident from the impugned award, the tribunal
awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of
estate. The petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/-
under the said head thereby entitling them to get an additional
compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
14. A perusal of the award further reveals that an
amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as compensation under
the head of loss of love and affection in favour of the petitioners.
Likewise, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded as
compensation for loss of consortium in favour of the 1 st petitioner
who is none other than the wife of the deceased. Further, an
amount of Rs.50,000/- each has been awarded in favour of the
2nd and 3rd petitioners, who are the minor children of the
deceased, under the head of loss of care and protection. While
considering whether any interference is required with respect to
the amount of compensation awarded under the said heads, first
of all it is to be noted that the relationship and emotional bond
existing between the petitioners cannot be ignored. In view of
the decision in Pranay Sethi (cited supra) all the petitioners
are entitled to get an amount of Rs.40,000/- each as
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :9: 2026:KER:1781
compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled to get a total amount of Rs.1,60,000/-
under this head. When a reasonable amount is awarded under
the head of loss of consortium, the compensation awarded in
favour of the petitioners under the heads of love and affection
and care and protection, are liable to be deducted. As evident
from the impunged award, already a total amount of
Rs.2,10,000/- has been awarded under the heads of loss of
consortium, love and affection and care and protection.
However, the petitioners are legally entitled to get a
compensation of only Rs.1,60,000/- under the sole head of loss
of consortium. If that be so, an amount of Rs.50,000/-
(2,10,000-160,000) is liable to be deducted from the total
compensation awarded. Likewise, under the conventional head
of funeral expenses an amount of Rs.25,000/- has awarded. In
view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (cited supra), the
maximum permissible amount under the said head is
Rs.15,000/-. Hence an amount of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be
deducted under the said head as well. Resultantly, an amount
of Rs.4,03,792/- (3,93,792+10,000) is liable to be added and an
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :10: 2026:KER:1781
amount of Rs.60,000/- (50,000+10,000) is liable to be deducted
from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal
15. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under
other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and
therefore no interference is warranted with respect to those
heads.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings,
the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a
further amount of Rs.3,43,792/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty
Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Two only)
[(3,93,792+10000) -(50000+10000)] 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, after deducting
interest for a period of 1666 days, i.e., the period of delay in
preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on
17.12.2020 in C.M.Appln. No.1 of 2020. The respondent
insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced
compensation with interest and proportionate costs before the
tribunal within a period of three months from the date of this
judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being
MACA NO. 2082 OF 2020 :11: 2026:KER:1781
deposited, the tribunal shall, after deducting the liability of the
appellant/petitioner towards court fee, if any, disburse the
compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
nk
