2025:KER:23978 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.10.2012 IN OPMV NO.637 OF 2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR APPELLANTS: 1 VIDHYANADHAN S/O.MADHAVAN 2 DIVYA AGED 25 YEARS D/O.VIDHYANADHAN. 3 DINIL AGED 20 YEARS S/O.VIDHYANADHAN, ALL ARE RESIDING AT AIKKARATH HOUSE, CHAKKARA, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENTS: 1 K.H.ALIYAR S/O.HASSAN, RESIDING AT KAROTHUKUZHY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542. 2 PINTO AGED 29 YEARS S/O.PRAKASAN, RESIDING AT VAZHAKKULATHU HOUSE, THRITHALLUR, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 2 2025:KER:23978 680619. 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED S.S.N.SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, NATTIKA, P.O.TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680567. BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN-SC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 3 2025:KER:23978 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 27th day of February, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.637/ 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, are the appellants 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 husband and children of the deceased Vasantha, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.11.2005. According to them, on 13.11.2005, at about 3.15 p.m.,while the deceased was travelling in an autorickshaw, a car bearing Reg. No.KL-17/A 6350 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner , the 2nd respondent is the driver 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 MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 4 2025:KER:23978 Rs.8,25,000/- 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.A16 to A22. 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.3,76,625/-(rounded to 3,76,700) and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners referred 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.T.C Suresh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri. P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 5 2025:KER:23978 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 at Rs.3000/-. 11. 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 2005 will come to Rs.5000/--. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2005 will come to Rs.5000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.5000/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years. Therefore, 25% 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 14, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 6 2025:KER:23978 deceased was married who left behind three dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 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.7,00,000/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 21,000/- 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 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.1,45,200/- (48,400 x3). 14. 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. MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 7 2025:KER:23978 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the same day after the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- 16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.9,10,125/- 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 Medical expenses Rs.1,625/- Rs.1,625/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.18150/- 3 Transportation expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.25,000/- 5 Dependency Rs.3,12,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.18150/- 7 Loss of on consortium Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,45,200/- 8 Loss of love and affection Rs.21,000/- NIL Total Rs.3,76,625/- (rounded to 3,76,700) Rs.9,10,125/- MACA NO. 1257 OF 2013 8 2025:KER:23978 Enhanced Rs.5,33,500/- 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.9,10,125/- (Rupees Nine lakhs ten thousand one hundred twenty five Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 140 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 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 vnk/-