Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
BINDU RAMESH – Appellant
Versus
MUTHU – Respondent
MACA NO. 1876 OF 2013 | MACA NO. 2099 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.L.JOSEPH, SHRI.V.NAMADEVA KAMATH, SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), SMT.K.K.PREETHA, SHRI.K.B.RAMANAND, SMT.DHANYA BABU M.B
Court revised compensation and contributory negligence determining just compensation, reflecting prior judicial decisions.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Sections regarding compensation in motor accident cases - The appeals arise from the same award for compensation following a car and lorry collision. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal for loss of dependency and other heads, citing precedential judgments. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8)
(B) Contributory negligence - The tribunal initially assigned a 50% responsibility; upon revision, the court ruled a 30:70 distribution of fault based on evidence presented. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Claimants, legal heirs of deceased Ramesh, sought compensation for his death in a vehicular accident caused by a negligent driver. Tribunal awarded a total of ₹21,86,000/-; claimants appealed for enhancement. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court revised compensation due to errors in calculating future income prospects and reduced contributory negligence of the deceased. Additional compensation awarded. (Paras 5-6)
Issues: The main questions involved calculating just compensation, fixing contributory negligence, and determining appropriate legal precedents applicable in this case. (Paras 3, 5, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found merit in the claimants’ arguments for enhanced compensation and revised the ratio of negligence based on judicial precedents, ensuring just and fair compensation reflecting the losses incurred. (Paras 5-8)
Result: Appeals partly allowed with enhanced compensation awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and background. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on liability and contributory negligence. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. reasoning on compensation adjustments based on justice. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 18.05.2013 in O.P.(MV) No.99 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.1876 of 2013 is filed by the claimants in the O.P, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C.A.No.2099 of 2013 is filed by the 3rd respondent, insurer in the O.P challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 07.05.2010 at about 03.00 am, while the deceased Remesh was travelling in the car bearing registration No.KL-32A-8575, it collided with the lorry bearing registration No.TAM-3877 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner which came from the opposite side. As a result, the driver and the passengers in the car including the deceased died on the spot. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh and they approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹ 18,48,675/-.
3. The first, second and fourth respondents, the driver and owner of the lorry and the owner of the car respectively remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent/insurer of the lorry written statement admitting the policy and denying the liability to indemnify the 2nd respondent/the owner of the lorry. The 5th respondent/insurer of the car filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1st respondent. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A47 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the ₹ pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of 21,86,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs equally from respondents 1 to 3 and respondent 4 and 5, finding 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and driver of the car, who also died in the accident. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal the claimants have come up in appeal. Whereas challenging the quantum as well as finding of contributory negligence, the insurer has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the monthly income of the deceased was fixed ₹ as 20,000/-, the tribunal omitted to add future prospects towards the income fixed. Since the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of accident, I find that Going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], it is appropriate to add 25% future prospects, towards the income fixed.
Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the notional ₹ income is fixed at 20,000/-, by adding 25% towards future prospects, ₹ the income is recalculated as 25,000/- for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Accordingly, following the apex court judgements in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802(SC) , the compensation payable under the said head is recalculated as thus:
₹ 26,00,000/- (25,000x12x13x2/3). The tribunal has already paid an ₹ amount of 20,80,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹5,20,000/- under the head loss of dependency.
Compensation for funeral expenses :- The learned counsel a
