Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Judge, J
5th respondent – Appellant
Versus
petitioners – Respondent
OP(MV).1052/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.George Cherian
For the Respondents: Smt.Latha Susan Cherian
Legal representatives can claim compensation for pain and suffering post-death, and the court recalibrated compensation based on established precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for death in motor accident - The Tribunal awarded Rs.22,18,955/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. The court recalculated the loss of dependency, future prospects, and other heads of compensation, resulting in a total of Rs.29,65,755/- to be awarded to the petitioners. (Paras 6, 25, 26)
(B) Negligence - The court established negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle based on the charge sheet produced by the petitioners. The insurer is liable to indemnify the compensation. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The deceased died due to a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of a mini lorry. The petitioners claimed compensation for loss of dependency and other heads, while the insurer contested the claim.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the original compensation was inadequate and recalculated the amounts due under various heads, including pain and suffering, which were previously overlooked.
Issues: The main issue was whether the quantum of compensation awarded was just and reasonable considering the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that legal representatives could claim compensation for pain and suffering, and recalibrated the compensation amounts based on established precedents and statutory provisions.
Result: The appeal is allowed in part, and the total compensation is modified to Rs.29,65,755/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the accident and initial compensation awarded. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on negligence and notional income. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. legal representatives' claims for pain and suffering. (Para 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final rulings on compensation and legal reasoning. (Para 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. conclusion on total compensation awarded. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Dated : 15th January, 2025
The 3rd respondent in OP(MV).1052/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant herein. The petitioners in the OP are the cross objectors. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)
2. The petitioners are the wife, parents and minor son of the deceased Aneesh, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.4.2011. According to the petitioners, on 16.4.2011, at about 7.15 p.m the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No.TN 59/H-2847 through MC road at Pulluvazhy Nangelipady from south to north direction. At that time a mini lorry bearing No.KL-17/8853 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, suddenly turned towards its right-hand side, without giving any signal and hit down the motor cycle ridden by the deceased resulting in his death on 25.4.2011.
3. The driver, owner and insurer of the mini lorry are respondent Nos.1, and Additional respondents 4 and 5 respectively. According to the them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, they filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.34,30,000/- limited to Rs.1500000/-.
4. The respondents 2 and 3 who are the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were deleted from the party array. The additional 5th respondent/insurer alone filed a written statement, admitting the policy and disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,18,955/-
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 5th respondent preferred this appeal, while the petitioners preferred the cross-objection.
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.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Counsel for the original petitioner.
10. The Point: In this case the accident and valid policy of the offending vehicle are not disputed in the appeal. Though in the written statement the 3rd respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, at the time of arguments such a contention was not taken. The petitioners produced Ext.A5, copy of the charge sheet involved in the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in respect to the above accident. In the light of the above charge sheet, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle stands proved. Therefore, the 5th respondent, being the insurer, is liable to indemnify the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle.
11. At the time of the incident, the deceased was aged 29 years. The incident was on 16.4.2011. The petitioners claimed that being a driver, the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.8000/- However, they could not prove the said claim, by adducing evidence. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , [(2022) 13 SCC 236], the notional income of a Coolie in the year 2004 is to be
