[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sujatha vs Aneesh on 31 January, 2026
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1617 OF 2014
OPMV NO.571 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER:
A. PICHAI KANI
S/O ANAIKAN, DOOR NO.211/B, NORTH STREET, KALINGAPETTY
VILLAGE, PARANGUDRAPURAM (PO), SURANDAI (VIA),
THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, PIN - 627 859.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONERS 2-4:
1 ANEESH V.V.
S/O VIJAYAPPAN, VALIACHIRA, KUDAVECHOOR (PO), VECHOR,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHERUPUSHPAM
BUILDING, PALA, PIN - 686 575.
3 RAJAMMAL
W/O A PICHAI KANI, DOOR NO.211/B, NORTH STREET,
KALINGAPETTY VILLAGE, PARANGUDRAPURAM (PO) SURANDAI
9VIA) THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, PIN - 627 859
4 ADHI NARAYANAN MOORTHY
S/O A PICHAI KANI, DOOR NO.211/B, NORTH STREET,
KALINGAPETTY VILLAGE, PARANGUDRAPURAM (PO) SURANDAI
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..2..
(VIA) THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, PIN - 627 859
5 MARAGATHAM
D/O PICHAI KANI, DOOR NO. 211/B, NORTH STREET
KALINGAPETTY VILLAGE, PARANGUNDRAPURAM PO, SURANDAI
(VIA), THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT-627859.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SHRI.RESSIL LONAN
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SHRI.R.ANILKUMAR (KOTTAYAM)
SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON
SMT.VRINDA T.S.
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 07.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.167/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 31.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..3..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 167 OF 2014
OPMV NO.571 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND
FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.GROAD, KOCHI 35
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1, 2 & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 A. PICHAI KANI, S/O.ANAIKAN
S/O.ANAIKAN, DOOR NO 211/B, NORTH STREET,
KALINGAPETTYVILLAGE, PARANGUNDRAPURAM P.O, SURANDAI (VI),
THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 627859
2 RAJAMMKAL, W/O PAICHAI KANI,DOOR NO 211/B, NORTH STREET,
KALINGAPETTYVILLAGE, PARANGUNDRAPURAM P.O, SURANDAI (VI),
THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 627859
3 ANEESH V.V., S/O9 VIJAYAPPAN, VALIACHIRA, KUDAVECHOOR P.O,
VECHOOR, VAIKOM 686143
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
07.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.1617/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 31.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..4..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1994 OF 2013
OPMV NO.161 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 SUJATHA, W/O.LALAN, ATTUCHALIL HOUSE, KOZHIMALA P.O.,
THULASIPPADI, KATTAPPANA.
2 ANEESH V.V., S/O.VIJAYAPPAN, VALIACHIRA, KUDAVECHOOR
P.O., VECHOOR, VAIKOM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ
SMT.RESHMA SANTHOSH
SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 07.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.1617/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 31.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..5..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
MACA NO. 1097 OF 2014
OPMV NO.161 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUJATHA
W/O LALAN, AATTUCHALIL HOUSE, KZOHIMALA P.O.,
THULASIPPADI, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANEESH
S/O VIJAYAPPAN, VALIACHIRA, KUDUVECHOOR P.O., VECHOOR,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 144.
2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHERUPUSHPAM
BUILDINGS PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 07.01.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.1617/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 31.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..6..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MACA Nos. 1617 of 2014, 167 of 2014,
1994 of 2013 & 1097 of 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
All these appeals arose from the impugned award dated
17.06.2013 in OP(MV) Nos. 571 of 2010 and 161 of 2011 on the files of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala.
2. The appellant in MACA No. 1097 of 2014 is the claimant in
OP(MV) No.161 of 2011 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"); and the appellant in MACA No. 1617 of
2014 is the first claimant in OP(MV) No.571 of 2010 filed under Section
166 of the Act. They have come in appeal, seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the tribunal.
3. The appellant in MACA Nos. 1994 of 2013 and 167 of 2014 is
the insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. The insurer has
come up in appeal challenging the impugned award, whereby they are
directed to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle. It is also alleged that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive.
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..7..
4. Since the appeals arose from the very same accident, the
appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the
tribunal.
5. The case of the claimants is that on 11.12.2009, while the
deceased in both claim petitions were pillion riders on a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KL-36/A-4429, proceeding through Kottayam-
Ettumanoor public road, ridden by the first respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, the first respondent lost control of the motorcycle,
resulting in the vehicle hitting a telephone post. Consequently, both
pillion riders were thrown onto the road and sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the
deceased, approached the tribunal by filing OP(MV) Nos. 161 of 2011
and 571 of 2010, claiming a total compensation of ₹6,00,000/- and
₹8,00,000/- respectively.
6. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the
offending vehicle, appeared before the tribunal. The second respondent
insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the
offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of
compensation claimed. It is further contended that there was policy
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..8..
violation on the ground that the motorcycle was overloaded with two
pillion riders and the first respondent/rider had no valid licence at the
time of the accident. Exts.A1 to A11, B1 & B2 were marked. The
tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held
that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the rider of
the offending motorcycle and awarded a sum of ₹4,36,500/- and
₹4,26,000/- to the claimants in OP(MV) Nos.161 of 2011 and 571 of 2010
respectively as compensation under different heads with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the
second respondent being the insurer with right of recovery against the
first respondent/owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle. Further,
a penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded in default of
payment as above. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants as
well as the insurer have come up in appeal.
7. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer,
the learned counsel for the claimant in OP(MV) No.161 of 2011 and the
learned counsel for the claimants in OP(MV) No.571 of 2010.
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that
the motorcycle was overloaded with two pillion riders and further, there
was no valid driving licence for the rider of the motorcycle. According to
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..9..
the learned Standing Counsel, since the motorcycle was overloaded and
the seating capacity of the motorcycle is only for the rider and a pillion
rider, the insurer is not liable to pay any amount to the additional pillion
rider and the liability of the insurer is limited to only one pillion rider. It
was further submitted that the insurer is ready to pay compensation to
one pillion rider, who is awarded the highest amount of compensation.
In support of the contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on
the judgment of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Anjana Shyam [2007 (3) KLT 993 (SC)].
9. Per contra, the respective learned counsel appearing for the
claimants, relying on the judgment of the apex court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M.Poonam and others [2011 KHC 4218] and
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Minor Antony
Danny K. @ Danny K.A. v. Manjula K.S. & others [2017:KER:44406],
submitted that since there was absence of driving licence for the rider,
the insurer is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle. Under such circumstances, the insurer may be
directed to pay the amount to both pillion riders and then recover from
the owner of the motorcycle.
10. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..10..
The policy issued in respect of the offending motorcycle was
comprehensive policy. As per the provisions of the policy, the seating
capacity of a two wheeler is two, i.e., for the rider and a pillion rider.
Admittedly, there were two pillion riders and both sustained fatal
injuries, who succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of both pillion
riders filed claim petitions. It is not in dispute that there was no valid
driving licence for the rider and there was breach of policy conditions.
The owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle has not filed any
appeal challenging the finding of the tribunal and thus, the finding has
attained finality. Though a contention was raised by the insurer before
the tribunal that the policy does not cover the risk of two pillion riders,
the tribunal, finding that there was valid policy issued by the insurer,
directed the insurer to pay the amount with right of recovery against
the owner of the offending vehicle.
11. On this point, the finding of the tribunal does not appear to
be correct going by the judgment in Anjana Shyam (supra), wherein it
was held that Section 149 of the Act cannot be understood as
compelling the insurance company to make payment of amounts
covered by decrees not only in respect of number of persons covered by
policy itself but even in respect of those who are not covered by policy
and who have been loaded into the vehicle against the terms of permit.
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..11..
The apex court further held that the insurance company can be held
liable to pay compensation only in respect of the seating capacity of the
vehicle. It was also held that practical and proper course would be to
hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to
cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit
the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the
number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Accordingly, in
Anjana Shyam (supra), the apex court directed the insurer to pay in
respect of the permitted passengers and directed the tribunal to
distribute the amount so deposited by the insurance company
proportionately to all claimants, and leave all the claimants to recover
the balance from the owner of the vehicle.
12. In K.M.Poonam (supra) relied on by the claimants, the
apex court directed the insurer to pay the entire amount and then
recover the amount in excess of its liability, from the owner of the
offending vehicle. Though the judgment in Anjana Shyam (supra) was
considered and referred to in K.M. Poonam (supra), the apex court,
considering the facts of the case in K.M. Poonam (supra), directed the
insurance company to pay the amount and thereafter recover the same
from the owner of the vehicle, in order to subserve the interest of
justice, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..12..
Constitution of India. In Minor Antony Danny K. @ Danny K.A.
(supra), the Division Bench of this Court also, without considering
Anjana Shyam (supra), followed K.M.Poonam (supra) and directed the
insurance company to pay and recover the amount of compensation.
Both the judgments in Anjana Shyam (supra) and K.M.Poonam
(supra) were rendered by a Bench of two judges. In Minor Antony
Danny K. (supra) relied on by the claimants, the Division Bench of this
Court followed K.M.Poonam (supra), but was rendered without
considering Anjana Shyam (supra). The direction to pay and recover
the award amount by the apex court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot be followed as a
precedent to direct the insurance company to pay and recover the
amount, when they have no liability to pay the amount. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to follow the
law laid down in Anjana Shyam (supra). Thus, I find that the insurance
company can be held liable only to pay the highest award in respect of
the two claim petitions and the amount thus deposited shall be equally
apportioned between the claimants in the two claim petitions. Since
there was no driving licence for the rider, the insurance company shall
be entitled to recover the amount thus deposited, from the owner of the
offending vehicle. As regards the balance amount, the claimants will be
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..13..
at liberty to realise the same from the owner of the vehicle.
13. The learned counsel for the claimant claims enhancement
under the following heads under Section 163A of the Act:
13.1. Notional Income - The learned counsel for the
claimant submitted that though an amount of ₹3,300/- was claimed as
the monthly income of the deceased, who claimed to be a hotel worker,
the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹2,500/-. The learned counsel
for the claimant further submitted that even going by the judgment in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident that
occurred in 2009, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹7,000/- and
sought for an enhancement of the income fixed. However, considering
the fact that the deceased was a hotel worker by profession, it is
reasonable to take the maximum income claimed. Accordingly, I deem it
appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹3,300/-.
13.2. Loss of dependency - As per the Second Schedule of
the Act, since the income was fixed as ₹3,300/- and the deceased was
aged 21 years, the total compensation payable is ₹7,20,000/-. However,
1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..14..
the deceased. Accordingly, after deducting 1/3rd of the income, the
claimant will be entitled to get a compensation of ₹4,80,000/- (720000 x
2/3). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹4,32,000/-
towards loss of dependency and thus, there will be an additional amount
of ₹48,000/-.
13.4. Though the claimant claimed enhancement of
compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records
available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with
the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.
13.5. Since the appeal is of the year 2014, I fix interest on
the enhanced compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till realization. Further, on a perusal of the impugned award, it
is seen that the tribunal awarded penal interest at the rate of 9%, which
is not legally sustainable in view of the judgment of the apex court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur [2004 (2) SCC 370].
Therefore, the direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 9%
per annum is hereby set aside.
13.6. Thus, the compensation awarded by the tribunal in
OP(MV) No.161 of 2011 is modified as follows:
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..15..
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified Total
claimed awarded in appeal compensation
(in ₹) by the (in ₹) (in ₹)
tribunal
(in ₹)
1. Loss of earnings - - - -
2. Transport to 10000 - - -
hospital
3. Bystander 1000 - - -
expenses
4. Extra nourishment - - - -
5. Damages to 1000 - - -
clothing
6. Hospital expenses 10000 - - -
7. Funeral expenses 20000 2000 - 2000
8. Pain and suffering 50000 - - -
9. Loss of 448000 432000 48000 480000
dependency
10. Loss of estate 50000 2500 - 2500
11. Loss of love and 50000 - - -
affection
12. Loss of expectancy 50000 - - -
of life
Total 690000 436500 48000 484500
limited
to
600000
14. The learned counsel for the claimants claims
enhancement under the following heads under Section 166 of the Act:
14.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the
claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹8,000/- was claimed as
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..16..
the monthly income of the deceased, who claimed to be a paratha
maker, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/-. The learned
counsel for the claimants further submits that even going by the
judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an
accident that occurred in 2009, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed
at ₹7,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed.
Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I
deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at
₹7,000/-.
14.2. Loss of dependency - Since the deceased was aged
23 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)],
40% of the future prospects is to be added to the refixed monthly
income and thus, the income would be ₹9,800/- (7000 + 2800) for
awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. The
deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and thus, the deduction
towards his personal and living expenses is 1/2 and the multiplier to be
adopted is "18". Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..17..
head is ₹10,58,400/- (9800 x 12 x 18 x 1/2). The tribunal had granted an
amount of ₹3,96,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an
additional amount of ₹6,62,400/- under the head loss of dependency.
14.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection - The
learned counsel for the claimants submits that the tribunal has not
awarded compensation towards loss of consortium. It is further
submitted that since the parents were alive at the time of the accidents,
they are entitled to get a compensation of ₹40,000/- each. It is further
submitted that as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are
also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years from
2017. Accordingly, the parents are awarded a compensation of ₹48,400/-
each towards loss of consortium, totalling to ₹96,800/- (48400 x 2).
14.3.1. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits
that the tribunal awarded ₹5,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi
(supra). I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel.
Once compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no
amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and affection as it
amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New India
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..18..
OnLine 1198 (SC). Therefore, the compensation of ₹5,000/- awarded by
the tribunal towards loss of love and affection is deleted.
14.4. Funeral expenses - The learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/-
towards funeral expenses. However, going by the judgment in Pranay
Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to
have been ₹15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a
span of three years from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay
Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the claimants a total
compensation of ₹18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the
claimants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹8,150/-
under this head.
14.5. Loss of estate - The learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹5,000/-
towards loss of estate. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the
compensation under conventional heads ought to have been ₹15,000/-
and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years
from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I
deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹18,150/- towards
loss of estate. Hence, the claimants will be entitled to get an additional
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..19..
compensation of ₹13,150/- under this head.
14.6. Though the claimants claimed enhancement of
compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records
available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with
the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.
14.7. Since the appeal is of the year 2014, I fix interest on
the enhanced compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till realization. Further, on a perusal of the impugned award, it
is seen that the tribunal awarded penal interest at the rate of 9%, which
is not legally sustainable in view of the judgment of the apex court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur [2004 (2) SCC 370].
Therefore, the direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 9%
per annum is hereby set aside.
14.8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the tribunal in
OP(MV) No.571 of 2010 is modified as follows:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified Total
claimed awarded in appeal compensation
(in ₹) by the (in ₹) (in ₹)
tribunal
(in ₹)
1. Transport to 5000 10000 - 10000
hospital
2. Extra nourishment 1000 - - -
3. Damages to 1000 - - -
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..20..
clothing
4. Hospital expenses 30000 - - -
5. Funeral expenses 50000 10000 8150 18150
6. Pain and suffering 50000 - - -
7. Loss of 300000 396000 662400 1058400
dependency
8. Loss of estate 300000 5000 13150 18150
9. Loss of love and 300000 5000 -5000 deleted
affection
10. Loss of consortium 50000 - 96800 96800
11. Compensation for 300000 - - -
mental shock
12. Loss of consortium - - - -
Total 1387000 426000 775500 1201500
limited
to
800000
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified as follows;
a) MACA No. 1097 of 2014 is allowed in part. The claimant is
awarded an additional compensation of ₹48,000/- (Rupees forty
eight thousand 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 direction of
the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 9% per annum is set aside.
b) MACA No. 1617 of 2014 is allowed in part. The claimants are
awarded an additional compensation of ₹7,75,500/- (Rupees seven
lakh seventy five thousand and five hundred only) over and above
the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 6% per
2026:KER:8124
MACA No.1617 of 2014 & con. cases
..21..
annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate
costs. However, the enhanced compensation will not carry interest
for the period of delay of 258 days in filing the appeal. The
direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 9% per annum
is set aside.
c) MACA Nos.1994 of 2013 and 167 of 2014 are disposed of. The
direction to the insurance company in the impugned award dated
17.06.2013 is modified by directing the insurance company to pay
the highest of the compensation payable to the claimants and to
deposit the same before the tribunal together with interest and
costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. The insurance company shall
recover the amount, so deposited, from the owner of the offending
vehicle. The tribunal shall equally apportion the amount deposited
by the insurer, between the claimants in both original petitions.
d) The claimants are entitled to recover the balance amount of
compensation with interest and costs from the owner of the
vehicle.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
