Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
CHINNAMMA, SHIJI, SHINI – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T CORPORATION – Respondent
MACA NO. 1041 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.R.NIMOD, SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
For the Respondents: SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM), SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE, SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN, SHRI.G.RANJU MOHAN, SC, KESNIK, SHRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
In a fatal accident claim, established notional income and loss of consortium considerations provide grounds for adjusting compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against compensation granted by Tribunal - Claim petitioners, parents and sisters of the deceased, argue the compensation amount is inadequate compared to demonstrated earning - Tribunal’s assessment of notional income as too low is contested by petitioners. (Paras 5-9)
(B) Compensation Principles - Decree of compensation to include loss of consortium and love and affection - Award modified based on established precedents regarding loss of consortium and separate compensation for loss of love and affection - Subsequent adjustment based on arguments presented. (Paras 10, 10.2, 10.3)
(C) Findings on Evidence - Court finds evidence of deceased's employment sufficient to enhance notional income; however, the award is recalibrated to remove excess claims for love and affection while awarding suitable amounts under loss of consortium. (Pars 8-10)
(D)
Result: Appeal allowed with compensation enhanced to ₹15,92,000/- with interest at 8% per annum. (Para 11)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the accident leading to the claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. responses and statements from both parties regarding negligence and compensation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's evaluation of compensation awarded by the tribunal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal arguments addressing compensation calculation and appropriate awards. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final judgment and orders regarding enhanced compensation. (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 claim petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P.(MV) No.25/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 03/12/2019. 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 parents and sisters of deceased Shiju. According to the claim petitioners, on 17/11/2013 at about 09:15 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-8-X-6941 through Thrissur-Palakkad road and when he reached the place by name Vazhakkumpara, KSRTC bus bearing registration no.KL-15/8201 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed.
3. The first respondent-owner and second respondent-driver of the offending bus filed written statement denying the negligence on the part of the second respondent.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver. The averments in the petition regarding age, injuries, income and hospitalisation of the deceased were disputed. The amount claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the third respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹10,72,200/- together with interest @ 8% 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 heads are challenged by the claim petitioners-
Notional Income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased was an electrician earning ₹12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹6,500/- only, which is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced appropriately. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was an electrician and if at all the Court is inclined to enhance the notional income, it may be in accordance with the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC
236.
9.1. Apart from Ext.A1 FIS, there is no material to show that the deceased was an electrician. However, the marking of Ext.A1 was never objected to at the time when it was brought in evidence. In the FIS it is stated that the deceased was an electrician. That being the position, I find that an amount of ₹10,000/- can be fixed as the notional income of the deceased.
Loss of consortium and loss of love and affection
10. Admittedly, the first claim petitioner is the mother and the second and third claim petitioners, the sisters aged, 40 and 37 years re
