Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
SUBAIDA, MUHASINA, MUFEEDA, PATHUMMA, MUHAMMED KORAN – Appellant
Versus
AKBAR ALI, SAHIR CHAKKALAKKAL, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Respondent
MACA NO. 1302 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.P.ANIL KUMAR
For the Respondents: SEBASTIAN VARGHESE
Appeal granted, adjusting compensation for notional income and modifying dual claims for consortium and affection, establishing clearer legal precedents for future case assessments.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the Award for compensation - The Tribunal awarded ₹18,97,500/- which is challenged on grounds of notional income assessment and loss of consortium compensations. Fixed notional income modified from ₹9,000/- to ₹11,000/- based on precedent, and compensation for loss of love and affection deducted due to overlap with consortium recovery. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Modification of Tribunal's award is deemed appropriate to enhance total compensation to ₹19,62,500/-, with interest at 8% per annum until realisation. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal regards compensation awarded to family of deceased Muhammed Kutty following a motorcycle accident due to negligence of the rider, leading to grievous injuries and death. Respondent's admission of policy but denial of negligence marked in the case. Basic evidence consisted of documents, reiterating the need for a clear determination in compensation amounts.
Findings of Court:
Previous award findings deemed inadequately reflected deceased's earnings, requiring adjustment based on legal principles guiding additional compensation assessments.
Issues: The appellate court needed to ascertain the soundness of Tribunal findings regarding both income assessments and dual compensations for consortium and affection.
Ratio Decidendi: The significance placed on the legal precedents establishing the computation of future loss incomes while ensuring no double compensation for the same underlying loss area to streamline compensative justice.
Result: Appeal allowed, modifying total compensation as stated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident leading to appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insurance company's denial of negligence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's record of tribunal findings. (Para 6) |
| 4. assessment of compensation adjustment. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. overall outcome for the case. (Para 11) |
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.994/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 22/07/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. The claim petitioners are the wife, children and parents of deceased Muhammed Kutty. According to the claim petitioners, on 14/09/2017 at about 01:30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-52-B-9182 ridden by the second respondent and when they reached the place by name VK Padi at AR Nagar, car bearing registration no.KL-10-AJ-6447 stopped abruptly infront of the motorcycle and the second respondent had to apply sudden brake, which caused the deceased to fall on the road as a result of which he had sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 2nd respondent.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver of the offending motorcycle remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. It was also contended that the second respondent did not have any valid license at the time of the accident. The amount claimed under various heads was also disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-rider of the offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹18,97,500/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioners-
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased, a 42-year-old coolie was earning ₹30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹9,000/-, which is low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236
9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the deceased is fixed at ₹11,000/-.
Loss of consortium and loss of love and affection
10. On going through the Award, I find that the Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of love and affection as well as compensation for loss of consortium. In the light of the dictums inMagma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , AIR 2020 SC 3076 : 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati , 2020 KHC 6530 : (2020) 9 SCC 644, when compensation for loss of consortium is granted, no further compensation can be granted under loss of love and affection, as the same comes within the concept of consortium. Therefore, an amount of ₹2,50,000/- g
