IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
Jagadeesh Kumar S/o Late Thankappan - Appellant
Versus
Vinu S/o Chinna Pillai - Respondent
MACA No. 2546 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to death in a motor vehicle accident - The deceased was hit by a lorry driven negligently, resulting in her death - The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,27,000/- as compensation, which was contested by the petitioners seeking Rs.7,00,000/- - The court found the Tribunal's compensation inadequate and recalculated it to Rs.8,72,900/- based on established legal principles regarding dependency and loss of consortium. (Paras 2 , 6 , 17 , 22 )
(B) Legal Principles - The court reaffirmed that major children can claim compensation as dependents, irrespective of their financial independence, citing precedents that support this view. (Paras 12 , 15 )
(C) Findings of Court - The court determined that the income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month based on Supreme Court guidelines, and adjusted for future prospects and deductions for personal expenses. (Paras 11 , 17 )
(D) Issues - The main issue was whether the compensation awarded was just and reasonable, particularly concerning the income of the deceased and the status of the petitioners as dependents. (Para 8 ) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court held that the Tribunal's assessment of income was incorrect and that compensation for loss of consortium should be awarded, while also addressing the need for reasonable compensation for pain and suffering. (Paras 18 , 20 ) (F) Result - The appeal was allowed in part, enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,72,900/- with interest. (Para 23 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam 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 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the children of the deceased by name Jagadamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.5.2013. According to them, on 21.5.2013, at about 9.15 am., while the deceased was standing by the side of Kollam-Alapuzha National Highway, lorry bearing registration No.KL-21A-1906, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit her down and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
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 offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.7,00,000/-.
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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A7. 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.2,27,000/- 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 Smt. A D. Divya, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
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 tailor, getting a daily income of Rs.1200/- per day, but the Tribunal fixed her income at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 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/-. Since the petitioners could not prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.9,000/-.
12. Petitioners are the major son and daughter of the deceased. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinish Jain and Ors., [(2018) 3 SCC 619] would argue that the major children are not entitled to claim compensation as dependents of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., [2025 KHC OnLine 7116] and decision of a Single Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol and Ors., [ILR 2021 (4) Kerala 598] would argue that even major sons and married daughters can also claim compensation as dependents of the deceased.
13. In the decision in Vinish Jain and Ors. (supra), the deceased was aged 78 years and the dependents were two major sons having own source of income and two grand daughters primarily depen
Major children can claim compensation as dependents of a deceased parent, regardless of their financial independence.
Section 168 of Act, 1988, deals with concept of 'just compensation' and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The concept....
Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with concept of 'just compensation' and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standar....
The court established that compensation must be just and reasonable, fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- and modifying the total compensation to Rs.12,54,100/-.
The court established that the notional income of a deceased contractor should reflect his actual earnings, leading to an enhanced compensation amount based on loss of dependency.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that even major and earning legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency, as inter....
Court clarified the dependency criteria for compensation in fatal accidents, emphasizing bereaved family members' rights under social welfare legislation.
Claimants can receive compensation for loss of dependency regardless of age or employment status, assessed based on overall circumstances.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.