Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15153
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
NISHA – Appellant
Versus
UMESH KUMAR P.V. – Respondent
MACA 2024/2014
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, SMT.S.JAYASREE- SC
The court established that compensation must be just and reasonable, adjusting notional income and recognizing additional claims for pain and suffering.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 140 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - The Tribunal awarded Rs.72,400/-; however, the appeal modified the compensation to Rs.1,64,400/- based on recalculated notional income and additional heads for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. (Paras 6, 19, 20)
(B) Quantum of compensation - The court emphasized the need for just and reasonable compensation, adjusting the notional income from Rs.4000/- to Rs.7000/- based on established legal principles. (Paras 10, 14, 17)
(C) Suicide and connection to injuries - The court ruled that the suicide of the petitioner was not connected to the injuries sustained in the accident, thus denying claims related to death. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought compensation after the original petitioner sustained injuries in a bus accident on 15.10.2009 and later died on 11.03.2010. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.72,400/-, which was contested by the legal representatives.
Findings of Court:
The court found the initial compensation inadequate and recalculated it to Rs.1,64,400/-, including amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded was just and reasonable, particularly regarding the income assessment and additional claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notional income should reflect the standard for a coolie, and that compensation must adequately address pain and suffering, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of damages.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, with compensation modified to Rs.1,64,400/-.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.297/ 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, 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 by the 1st petitioner under under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a Motor Vehicles Accident that occurred on 15.10.2009. On 11.03.2010, he died and hence his legal representatives namely the wife and children were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4.
3. According to the petitioners, on 15.10.2009, at about 2.10 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in a bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the tyre of the bus fell into a ditch and the deceased fell down inside the bus, sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on 11.03.2010, 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 petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.5,80,000(limited to 2,00,000)
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 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.72,400/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the legal representatives of Original petitioers 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.Zubair Pulikkool, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Jayasree, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Mechanic, earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of a learned Single Bench of this Court inVenugopal& Ors. v. T L Paulson & Ors [2008 (3) KLJ 817] , would argue that the original petitioner committed suicide on account of the depression resulting from injuries sustained in the accident.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent rerlying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Muraleedharan Pillai & Ors. v. The Manager Raghavendra Central School & Ors. [MACA No.3592 of 2016] decided on 12.01.2013, would argue that, the suicide has no connection with the injuries sustained in the accident and as such it cannot be treated as a death on account of the injuries sustained in the accident.
13. In the decision in Venugopal (Supra), the claimants examined the doctor to prove that prior to the accident the victim was leading a happy life and there was no depression to him, but after the accident he caught depression which resulted in him committing suicide. In the above context the learned Single Judge found that it is to be taken as a case of death and 50% of the compensation as such was awarded to the legal heirs.
