Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
ELSY VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
JAYAN.K.G. – Respondent
MACA NO. 1384 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
For the Respondents: SMT.SANDHYA E.S., SHRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
The court modified the compensation due to error in assessing income and improper attribution of contributory negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Total compensation was awarded by the tribunal at Rs.4,67,000/-, but appeal affirmed modified compensation of Rs.14,20,500/- due to enhanced assessment of income and rectification of negligence. The deceased, a businessman was involved in an accident causing his death. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Compensation Calculation - The Court held that the assessment of income should consider future prospects, leading to a recalculated claim under loss of dependency. (Paras 7)
(C) Contributory Negligence - The finding of 15% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased was set aside as it was not validly proved that it affected the accident. (Paras 6)
Findings of Court:
Enhanced compensation granted along with interest at 7% per annum was directed to be deposited within two months.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident led to claim for compensation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on previous compensation and income. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. arguments centered around income assessment and contributory negligence. (Para 5) |
| 4. ratio regarding sufficient proof for negligence and its impact on appeal. (Para 6) |
| 5. final ruling on enhanced compensation and interest. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants in O.P (MV)
No.273 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 23.10.2005, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/J-7475, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/AD-5812 ridden by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit against him and thereby sustained serious injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries on 25.10.2005. The appellant approached the ₹
tribunal claiming a total compensation of 13,17,000/-.
3. Respondent 1 is the owner-cum-driver and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Before the tribunal, respondent 1 remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurer entered appearance and filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A14 to A19 and Ext.B1 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and material on record, held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the ₹
offending vehicle and awarded a sum of 4,67,000/-, as compensation under different heads against the 2nd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Notional income:- The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted though the deceased, a businessman, ₹
claimed an amount of 9,000/- per month, the tribunal had ₹
taken the income only at 3,000/-. The legal heirs relied on Ext.A17 and A18 copy of policy and passbook which reflected that ₹
the deceased was paying around 3,000/- per month towards chitty and premium towards the LIC. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the wife of the deceased was a school teacher and the amount spent for remitting towards chitty, might have been spent by the wife who was getting a fixed income. Considering the fact that the deceased was doing business at the time of accident, I find that ₹
an amount of 6,500/- can be fixed as his monthly income. Since the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of accident, by adding 40% towards the future prospects to the income now fixed by this Court, the monthly income for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency would be ₹
9,100/-.
Loss of dependency :- Since the deceased was aged 37 years, the multiplier to be adopted is ‘15’ and the deceased was survived by his parents as well as wife and daughter, I find that the deduction to be made is 1/4th. Accordingly, the compensation payable under the head is re-calculated thus:
₹
12,28,500/- (9100x12x15x3/4) as the total compensation payable. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹
4,05,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹
8,23,500/- payable under the head loss of dependency.
Funeral expenses/Loss of estate :- Towards the conventional head's funeral expenses and loss of estate, the ₹
tribunal has awarded only an amount of 5,000/- each. By following the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], , I find that the appellants are ₹
entitled for an amount of 30,000/- under the afore two heads.
₹
Thus, there will be an additional amount 20,000/- together under the afore two heads.
Loss of
