M.A.C.A. No. 1537/2022 : 1 : 2025:KER:26629 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 1537 OF 2022 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.01.2022 IN O.P.(MV) NO.1412 OF 2019 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 IBRAHIM. P., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, PAYYUNNI HOUSE, PILAKKAL, KARULAI, P.O. KARULAYI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 330. 2 ZEENATH, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. IBRAHIM, PAYYUNNI HOUSE, PILAKKAL, KARULAI, P.O. KARULAYI,NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679 330. 3 MUHAMMED NIYAS, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM.P., PAYYUNNI HOUSE, PILAKKAL, KARULAI P.O., KARULAYI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679330 BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 MUHAMMED SHIJAL. P.K., S/O. MUSTAFA.P.K., PUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE, KUTTIPPULI, P.O. KOLAPPARAMBA, (VIA) PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DRIVER)., PIN – 676 522. 2 MUSTHAFA.P.K., S/O. VEERAN, PUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE, KUTTIPPULI, KOLLAPPARAMBA, (VIA) PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 676 522 (OWNER). 3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. RAJIV GANDHI BYPASS,MANJERI BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, M.C.MALL, MELAKKAM.P.O., MANJERI (INSURER). R1 BY SRI. P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ R3 BY SRI. V.P. K. PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON 28.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 1537/2022 : 2 : 2025:KER:26629 JOHNSON JOHN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1537 of 2022 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025. JUDGMENT The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 1412 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Mohammed Amal, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on 13.08.2019, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, car driven by the 1st respondent in rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he sustained serious injuries and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. 3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the petitioners and Exhibit B1 was marked from the side of the respondents. M.A.C.A. No. 1537/2022 : 3 : 2025:KER:26629 4. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- to the petitioners. 5. Heard Sri. U.K. Devidas, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P.C. Muhammed Noushiq, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. V.P. K Panicker, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was a IInd year B. Sc student aged 20 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal fixed only Rs.7,500/- as notional income and the same is on the lower side. 7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in M.A.C.A. No. 1537/2022 : 4 : 2025:KER:26629 respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.12,000/- as the accident occurred in the year 2019. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that monthly income fixed as per the said decision is for an ordinary worker and the deceased was a IInd year B. Sc Food Technology student. Therefore, considering the circumstances, I find that the monthly notional income of the deceased at the time of the accident can be fixed as Rs.13,000/- for assessing the compensation. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established M.A.C.A. No. 1537/2022 : 5 : 2025:KER:26629 income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. 10. The Tribunal accepted ‘18’ as the multiplier applicable and deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. Thus, while reassessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.19,65,600/- [(13,000 + 40%) x ½ x 12 x 18]. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.11,34,000/- under this head. Therefore, the appellants are granted an additional compensation of Rs.8,31,600/- towards loss of dependency. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has not raised any argument challenging the compensation fixed by the Tribunal under other heads. It is brought to my notice that the Tribunal followed the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) for fixing the compensation under conventional heads. I find that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads are reasonable and requires no interference. M.A.C.A. No. 1537/2022 : 6 : 2025:KER:26629 12. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation as given below: Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Additional amount granted by this Court (Rs.) Compensation for loss of dependency 11,34,000/- 8,31,600/- Total enhanced compensation 8,31,600/- 13. Thus, a total amount of Rs.8,31,600/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand and Six Hundred only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till realization. The appellants would also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The claimants shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount. The appeal is allowed as above. sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE. Rv