SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Sofia K. Saju, W/o. Saju George and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
P.A. Itty (Died) and Ors. – Respondents
MACA No. 1218 Of 2017
Decided On : 20-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. Anchal C. Vijayan.
For the Respondents: Sri. T.V. Ajayakumar.

Court recalculated compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, establishing a more appropriate notional income and applying established legal precedents for damages, leading to a total compensation of Rs.20,66,000.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Compensation in fatal motor accident - Appeal for enhancement of compensation based on negligence leading to death - Original tribunal awarded Rs.5,21,000/-; modified to Rs.20,66,000/- by Court after recalculating notional income and damages. (Paras 2, 4, 5)

(B) Evaluation of notional income - Determination of monthly income at Rs.10,000/- after assessing evidence provided, including salary certificate; adjustments for future prospects based on age of deceased. (Paras 5.1, 5.2)

(C) Loss of consortium and other heads - Adjustments to compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, estate, and funeral expenses; application of Supreme Court precedents in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for guidance on compensation amounts. (Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)

Facts of the case:
Appeal by legal heirs of deceased following fatal accident where negligent driving resulted in the death of the deceased. The tribunal awarded Rs.5,21,000/-; appellants challenging the amount.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the original compensation inadequate and adjusted figures to award a total of Rs.20,66,000/-.

Issues: Determination of appropriate compensation figures for loss of dependency, consortium, and damages.

Ratio Decidendi: Legal principles guided the recalculation of compensation based on notional income and established precedents; the original tribunal's figures were deemed low and inconsistent with legal benchmarks.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded.

Table of Content
1. accident details and initial compensation decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for the enhancement of compensation. (Para 4 , 5)
3. final modifications to compensation and order. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT :

(SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.153 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 29.01.2004, while the deceased was standing on the backside of a lorry, another lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7-M-7506 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. Party respondents remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.5,21,000/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was working as driver-cum- manager and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income only at Rs.3,500/-, which is on the lower side. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submits that the income notionally fixed by the tribunal is just and proper. The appellants produced Ext.A9 driving licence and Ext.A12 salary certificate of the deceased to show that he was having heavy goods and heavy passenger driving licence with badge and he was working as driver of lorry since June, 2002, and was drawing Rs.500/- per day. In order to prove Ext.A12 salary certificate, PW2/employer was examined, who deposed that the deceased was drawing Rs.500/- per day. Being a lorry driver, it can be presumed that he would have worked for at least 20 days in a month. Hence, I find it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.10,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 27 years old at the time of the accident. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at Rs.14,000/- (10000 + 4000). Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802(SC) ], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.19,04,000/- (14000 x 12 x 17 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs.14,28,000/- under this head.

5.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love & affection. However, the tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top