Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
SHYLA FRANCIS – Appellant
Versus
BIJU K. R. – Respondent
MACA NO. 1805 OF 2020|OP(MV)NO.1537 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, SMT.V.T.LITHA, SMT.K.R.MONISHA, SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB
For the Respondents: SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
The court affirmed that compensation should reflect notional income and familial loss, ruling that evaluations must adhere to judicial precedents to ensure just outcomes.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal for enhancement of compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, and other claims - Tribunal's findings on negligence upheld, but compensation adjusted based on legal precedents regarding notional income and consortium claims - Total compensation enhanced from ₹9,26,000 to ₹10,21,000. (Paras 6, 10, 11)
(B) Compensation - Evaluation of claims for loss of income and affection - Notional income fixed based on judicial guidelines - Award for consortium and love adjusted to provide just compensation. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the Tribunal's award of compensation to the wife and children of a deceased in a motorcycle accident. The deceased was pillion riding when an accident occurred due to negligence.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found negligence on part of the first respondent and awarded ₹9,26,000, which was disputed; thus compensation was recalibrated in terms of proven loss and applicable precedents.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's findings warrant judicial interference, specifically concerning notional income and awarded compensation for consortium and affection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notional income must be determined within reasonable estimates based on evidence and previous judgments, leading to an uplift of the compensation amount reflecting losses sustained by the family.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural context and court's engagement. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. background of the accident and initial claim findings. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding compensation claims and adjustments. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning for adjusted compensation outcomes. (Para 11) |
J U D G M E N T
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1537 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Kottayam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 01/01/2020. 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 wife and children of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 08/12/2008 at about 04:30 p.m., while the deceased was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-23A/6077 and when he reached the place by name Murappanadu in Thirunelveli, due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent, the vehicle over turned as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. 3. The first respondent/owner-cum-rider filed written statement denying negligence on his part.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. Exts.B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 salary slip was also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹9,26,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of 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 head is challenged by the claim petitioners -
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased working as a security staff was earning ₹10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹6,000/-, which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236
9.1. There are no materials to prove the claim regarding the income. However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at ₹6,500/-
per month.
Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection
10. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the wife and two children of the deceased. Going by the dictums inMagma 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, the first claim petitioner, the wife is entitled to an amount of ₹40,000/- towards spousal consortium and the claim petitioners 2 and 3, the children are entitled to an amount of ₹40,000/- each towards parental consortium. Therefore, the claim petitioners are entitled to a total amount of ₹1,20,000/-. The Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium and an amount of ₹50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, that is, a total amount of ₹90,000/-. The
