MACA No.2961 of 2016 1 2025:KER:24799 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2961 OF 2016 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.03.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.434 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RAVEENDRAN PILLAI AGED 51 YEARS, S/O KUNJIRAMAN PIALLI, VILASINI MANDIRAM, P.K.NAGAR,- 91, VILAVOOR, PATTATHILKAVU DESOM,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2 USHA KUMARI AMMA AGED 47 YEARS, D/O PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, VILASINI MANDIRAM, P.K.NAGAR,-91,VILAVOOR, PATTATHILKAVU DESOM,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO RESPONDENT/ 3RD RESPONDENT : THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,MARTHANDAM BRANCH, K.K.DISTRICT -600 019. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.2961 of 2016 2 2025:KER:24799 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 18th day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.434/ 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam 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 parents of the deceased by name Renjith Raveendran, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.09.2012. According to them, on 27.09.2012, at about 11.30 p.m. while the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 02AK-8820 along the Kollam – Thiruvananthapuram NH-47, a Mini Lorry having reg. number TN-75D/1146 driven by the 2nd Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle 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 MACA No.2961 of 2016 3 2025:KER:24799 compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.20,80,000/-. 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 oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10. 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.5,67,000/- 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. Pratheesh P., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, and Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. MACA No.2961 of 2016 4 2025:KER:24799 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 as Tile worker, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. The mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and she adduced evidence supporting the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was a Tile worker getting a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a Tile worker and in the light of the evidence of PW1, I am inclined to fix his notional income at Rs.10,000/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 22 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards MACA No.2961 of 2016 5 2025:KER:24799 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/-. (14000 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) 13. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate or loss of consortium. The tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 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). 14. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has MACA No.2961 of 2016 6 2025:KER:24799 not awarded any amount as compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. 15. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 16. Therefore, the appellants/Petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.16,72,100/-, 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 Transport to hospital 1,000 1,000 2 Damage to clothing and articles 1,000 1,000 3 Funeral expenses and religious rites 25,000 18,150 4 Compensation for pain and suffering Nil 25,000 5 Compensation for loss of dependency & loss of earning power 5,40,000 15,12,000 6 Compensation for loss of estate Nil 18,150 7 Compensation for loss of consortium Nil 96,800 Total 5,67,000/- 16,72,100/- Enhanced Rs.11,05,100/- MACA No.2961 of 2016 7 2025:KER:24799 17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the respondent herein is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,72,100/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh seventy two thousand one hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with at the rate ordered by the Tribunal) from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, 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 S.M.K.