MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 1 2025:KER:24592 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.05.2016 IN OPMV NO.1474 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, KOLLAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2, 3 AND 4 :- 1 NIRMALA, AGED 46 YEARS W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, NIBU BHAVANAM, PANNEKKA THURUTHU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2 NISHA, AGED 28 YEARS D/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, NIBU BHAVANAM,PANNEKKA THURUTHU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 3 MEENAKSHY, AGED 74 YEARS D/O.KUNJIKUTTY, NIBU BHAVANAM,PANNAKKARA THURUTHU, PUTHENTHURAYIL P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENT S / RE S PONDENTS :- 1 JOUHAR HARIF, PROPRIETOR, KALATHIMGAL POLIMERS, NO.KP/VII/376, MARAYOOR ROAD, KUZHIMANA P.O., KIZHISSERY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673641.. 2 K.SHIHABUDEEN S/O.KUNNATHURAM UMMER, KUNNATHURA HOUSE, ATHANIKKAL, VALLUVAMBRAM, MALAPPURAM-673642. 3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691001. 4 THANKAMANI, 579, KALLUVILA, POOTHAKKULAM, PIN-691001, KOLLAM. BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 2 2025:KER:24592 JUDGMENT The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1474/2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kollam are the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents and sister of the deceased by name Nibu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.02.2012. According to them, on 21.02.2012 at about 08.45 pm, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle through Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway, a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-10-AJ-2603 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 3 2025:KER:24592 the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A19. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Sri.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.VPK Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working in Abudhabi as worker, earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.7,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 4 2025:KER:24592 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Ext.A7 passport, Ex. A8 employment agreement, and Exts.A9 to A12 documents to prove his income from employment aroad. However, Ext.A8 employment agreement was not attested by the Embassy officials, and as such, the said document stands not proved. However, from the documents produced by the petitioners, it can be seen that he was working abroad, though those documents are not sufficient to prove his income from the employment. 12. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. In the above circumstances, considering the fact that the deceased was employed abroad and he was engaged in some job there, his notional income is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. 13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 23 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 18, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was a bachelor who left behind 2 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/2 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.15,12,000/-. MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 5 2025:KER:24592 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection. No amount was awarded towards loss of consortium. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents, children and spouse) are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.96,800/- (48,400 x 2). 15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others, (2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to grant Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 6 2025:KER:24592 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.16,76,100/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 1134000 15,12,000 2 Loss of consortium Nil 96,800 3 Loss of estate 10000 18,150 4 Funeral expenses 25000 18,150 5 Damage to clothing & articles 3,000 3000 6 Loss of love and affection 50,000 Nil 7 Transportation 3000 3000 8 Pain and sufferings Nil 25,000 Total 12,25,000 16,76,100 Enhanced to Rs. 4,51,100 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,76,100/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Seventy Six Thousand One Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition MACA NO. 1131 OF 2017 7 2025:KER:24592 till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 234 days in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE SMA