Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
1 ASEENA AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.LATE SHAJAHAN, AL-AMEEN MANZIL, VELICHIKKALA P.O., ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM-691573. – Respondent
MACA NO. 1103 OF 2020 | CO NO. 17 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
For the Respondents: SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE
The court clarified that compensation calculations must be factual and evidence-based, adjusting for notional income discrepancies while ensuring fair award assessments.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Motor accident claim - Appeal filed by the insurer challenging the compensation amount of ₹25,71,500 awarded by the Tribunal - Compensation claimed was ₹20,00,000 - Tribunal found negligence of the driver and awarded compensation based on documentary evidence. The insurer disputed the deceased’s notional income of ₹15,000 per month, which was not supported by evidence other than the inquest report, leading the court to fix it at ₹11,500 per month based on prevailing standards for a coolie. (Paras 9, 9.1)
(B) Findings of Court - Compensation modified to ₹20,20,250 by deducting ₹5,51,250 from the awarded amount due to excessiveness based on incorrect income calculation. No other infirmities were found in the award. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Claim petitioners sought compensation after the deceased was killed in an accident involving the respondent's vehicle. The Tribunal adjusted compensation under various heads based on established principles. Findings: The insurer's appeal to adjust the income amount was partially accepted by adjusting compensation to a just figure.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's findings were infirm; whether the notional income was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal was partly allowed as the compensation calculation was excessive, and the proper figures were substituted based on available evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed with modifications.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims originate from a fatal motorcycle accident. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court to evaluate the basis for compensation awarded by the tribunal. (Para 7) |
| 3. evidence must substantiate claims for income. (Para 9) |
| 4. compensation modified to reflect fair assessment based on established norms. (Para 10) |
J U D G M E N T
The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1894/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 25/06/2019. The respondents herein are claim petitioners 1 to 4 respectively in the petition. The claim petitioners have filed Cross Objection no.17 of 2021. In this appeal and cross objection, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioners, on 20/04/2016 at
03:00 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle through TB Junction-Nedumchira road and when he reached the place by name Kaithakuzhi, private bus bearing registration No.KL02S9482 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down causing grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. A ₹
sum of 20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed joint written statement denying negligence on the part of the latter. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
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. No evidence was adduced by 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/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in ₹
the incident and hence awarded an amount of 25,71,500/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has 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:
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that despite the absence of any materials to establish the claim that the deceased was a fish merchant earning ₹
15,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹
15,000/-, which is on the higher side and hence needs to be appropriately reduced.
9.1. Though the deceased was stated to be a fish merchant ₹
earning 15,000/- per month, there is no evidence to substantiate the same apart from Ext.A3, which is the inquest report containing a statement that he is a fish merchant. There is nothing to prove the monthly earnings of the deceased. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236 ., the notional income of a ₹
coolie in the year 2016 is liable to be fixed at 10,500/-. As Ext.A3 ₹
is not seen disputed, the income can be fixed at 11,500/- per month.
10. Though a cross objection has been filed, on going through the impugned Award, I find that the Tribunal has awarded ₹
an amount of 25,71,500/- whereas the claim was only for ₹
20,00,000/-. No materials have been shown before this court to find that any infirmity or error has been committed by the Tribunal calling for an interference by
