2025:KER:22628 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3319 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2016 IN OPMV NO.593 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, PALAKKAD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD APPELLANT/PETITIONER: LAKSHMI AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE MADHAVAN,RESIDING AT VADAKOTTIL HOUSE, PRADHANI,VADAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AMBALLUR, TRISSUR DISTRICT, 680302(INSURER OF BUS REG NO. KL-8/AX-5151). BY ADV SRI.N.S.NAJEEB THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.3319 of 2017 2 2025:KER:22628 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 07th day of March, 2025 The 2nd petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.593/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – III, Palakkad, 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 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents of the deceased, by name Balachandran, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.09.2013. According to them, on 27.09.2013, at about 1.30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a bus from Vadakanchery to Palakkad, due to the negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent, he was thrown out of the bus into the road, sustained serious injuries, and succumbed to the injuries on 04.10.2013. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver, and the 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 restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-. During the pendency of the O.P., the 1st petitioner died, and the 2nd petitioner was recorded as the legal MACA No.3319 of 2017 3 2025:KER:22628 representative of the 1st petitioner. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as the policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony/ testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17, Ext.B1 on the side of 3rd respondent are also marked. 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.9,61,600/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 2nd petitioner, the legal representative of the deceased 1st petitioner, 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. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. N. S. Najeeb, the learned Standing MACA No.3319 of 2017 4 2025:KER:22628 Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as the valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/-. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was a lottery ticket seller getting a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- per month, however the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 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 2013 will come to Rs.9,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.9,000/-. 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 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-, 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.9000/-. MACA No.3319 of 2017 5 2025:KER:22628 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 27 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 17, 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 expenses, 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.12,85,200/- 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- 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.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents) are entitled to get a sum of Rs.48,400/- 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). 14. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, MACA No.3319 of 2017 6 2025:KER:22628 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. 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. Though the accident was on 27.9.2013, the deceased breathed his last only on 4.10.2013. 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.30,000/- 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 petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.14,99,900/-, 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 and miscellaneous 45,600/- 45,600/- 2 Transportation expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- 3 Damage to clothing etc. 1,000/- 1,000/- MACA No.3319 of 2017 7 2025:KER:22628 4 Pain and suffering 10,000/- 30,000/- 5 Loss of dependency income 7,65,000/- 12,85,200/- 6 Loss of consortium 96,800/- 7 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- ---- 8 Loss of estate 10,000/- 18,150/- 9 Funeral expenses 25,000/- 18,150/- Total 9,61,600/- 14,99,900/- Enhanced Rs. 5,38,300/- 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.14,99,900/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 420 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). (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 HKH/07.03.2025