2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 299 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2015 IN OPMV NO.182 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA/ I ADDL. M.A.C.T./M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PATHANAMTHITTA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS : 1 INDIRA SHAJI W/O. SHAJI, HOUSE NO. 148, NALPATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, VELIYANADU, WARD-5, KUTTANADU, PIN-688320. 2 SHABIN SHAJI S/O. SHAJI, HOUSE NO. 148, NALPATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, VELIYANADU, WARD-5, KUTTANADU, PIN-688320. 3 SHAMJI SHAJI S/O. SHAJI, HOUSE NO. 148, NALPATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, VELIYANADU, WARD-5, KUTTANADU, PIN-688320. 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 2 BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 3 J U D G M E N T The Respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.182/ 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, is 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 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the mother and younger siblings of the deceased by name Shine Shaji, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.01.2013. According to them, on 26.01.2013, at about 10.30 am while the deceased was riding a motorcycle having reg. number KL-04- AD-490 from Pattazhi to Changanacherry, a stage carriage bearing reg.no.KL-04-D-9704 driven by 1st Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on 15.02.2013, while under treatment. 3. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd 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 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 4 offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.50,00,000/-. 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 the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 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.38,25,792/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3rd Respondent 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.A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 5 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as Fabricator, earning Rs. 24000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.15000/-.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/appellant would argue that the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15000/-. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents would argue that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 11. In order to prove that the deceased was a fitter by profession, the learned counsel has relied upon Ext.A11 certificate issued from Kerala State Industrial Training Department. It shows that the deceased has successfully completed the ITI course in fitter in the year 2015. Therefore, from the evidence, it is revealed that the deceased was a fitter. It is true that in order to prove his income no other evidence was adduced by the petitioners. 12. As per the decisions of 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 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-. It is also to be noted that the deceased who was a qualified fitter was the only earning member of his 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 6 family consisting of his widowed mother and younger siblings, as his father was no more at the time of the accident at his early age. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.12000/-. 13. The Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospectus and deducted 1/3 alone, though the deceased was a bachelor. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that at the early age, the deceased lost his father and being the elder male member of the family he had looking after his entire family and as such the Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3 alone towards his personal and living expense. However as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, only if widowed mother and large number of dependents are there in the family, the deduction can be reduced to 1/3. In the instant case, in addition to widowed mother there are only two younger siblings to the deceased and as such it will not come within the exception to limit the deduction to 1/3. Therefore, moreover, since the deceased was aged 21 at the time of the accident. 14. Since the deceased was aged 21, only 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 7 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. In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.18,14,400/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards love and affection . 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, the 1st petitioner alone is entitled to get a sum of Rs.48400/-. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, is on the higher. Further according to him, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation on the head loss of love and affection. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that, though the 1st 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 8 petitioner mother alone is entitled to get compensation on the head loss of consortium, petitioners 2 & 3 being younger siblings are entitled to get compensation on the head ‘loss of love and affection’. Since the petitioners 2 & 3 lost their father at their childhood and the deceased who was the sole bread winner of their family died at the age of 21 when the 3rd petitioner was still a minor, there is some merit in the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Further in the decision in New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Sindhu 2025 (1) KLT 693, a learned Single Bench of this Court in a similar instance held that dependents/siblings are entitled to compensation on the head loss of love and affection though they are not entitled to get compensation on the head loss of consortium. Therefore, I hold that though the 1st petitioner alone is entitled to get a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. A sum of Rs.40,000/- each can be awarded to petitioners 2 & 3 on the head ‘loss of love and affection’. Therefore, the excess amount awarded on the head ‘loss of love and affection’ will be deducted, accordingly. 17. Though the accident was on 26.01.2013, the deceased died on 16.02.2013 about 21 days after the accident. In the above circumstances, Rs.50,000/- awarded on the head ‘pain and suffering’ is not on the higher side 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 9 and as such I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.22,89,892/-, 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 3240000 1814400 2 Pain and suffering 50000 50000 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Transport to hospital 8060 8060 5 Damage to clothes 1000 1000 6 Loss of love and affection to petitioners 2 and 3 150000 80000 7 Loss of estate 100000 18150 8 Medical treatment expenses 241732 241732 9 Bystander expenses 10000 10000 10 Loss of consortium Nil 48400 Total 3825792 2289892 Amount reduced 1535900 2025:KER:23666 MACA NO.299 OF 2016 10 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.22,89,892/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Two Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, 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 Pvv