Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
THILAKA RAJ – Appellant
Versus
M.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN – Respondent
MACA NO. 603 OF 2020 | OPMV NO.1041 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
For the Respondents: SMT.V.SHYLAJA
Compensation for loss of life in motor accident cases must adequately reflect potential earnings and emotional loss as established by legal precedent.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation in motor accident case - Claim petitioners challenged Tribunal's award of ₹3,95,000/- - Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver - Appeal allowed with enhancement of compensation to ₹8,41,800/- with interest at 8%. (Paras 6, 11, 12, 16)
(B) Compensation - Scope of enhancement - Determination of notional income and loss of consortium highlighted - The overall enhancement based on established legal precedents and the calculus of sorrow due to loss of life. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from an incident on 21/02/2012 where the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident, leading to a claim for ₹20,00,000/-.
Findings of Court:
The award of ₹3,95,000/- was found inadequate and increased to ₹8,41,800/- based on notional income and loss considerations.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's determination of compensation was justified given the circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation calculation must reflect fair compensation principles outlined in prior judgments. A justified enhancement in cases of loss of life must be considered.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case providing key details of the accident and initial compensation claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. response and findings by the tribunal regarding the accident and the awarded compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s evaluation and enhancement of compensation based on legal standards and precedents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.603 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of August 2025 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.1041/2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 25/05/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioners, on 21/02/2012 at 08:20 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in tempo traveller bearing registration no.KL 32/1467 driven by the second respondent through Wagamon-Erattupetta road and when she reached the place by name Vellikulam, due to the rash and negligent driving of the latter, the vehicle lost control and fell into a gorge, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries to which she 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 written statement denying negligence on the part of the latter.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied liability. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A68 to A72, A83 & A84 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was produced by the third respondent/insurer.
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 3,95,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, 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 is challenged by the claim petitioners -
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the notional income of the deceased fixed as ₹
3,000/- by the Tribunal is quite low in the light of the dictum in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. K.K.Assainar , 2019 KHC 685 .
9.1. Going by the dictum in K.K.Assainar (Supra), the ₹
annual income of the deceased is fixed at 67,000/-.
Loss of consortium
10. Admittedly, claim petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Going by the dictums in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 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, they are entitled to an amount of 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. As no amount had been granted by the Tribunal under this head, they are also entitled to enhancements at the rate of 10% every 3 years. Therefore, claim petitioners 1 and 2 will be ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹
entitled to 48,400/- each. ( 40,000 + 10% = 44,000; 44,000 +
₹
10% = 48,400/-).
L
