Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
KUNJUMON K.T. (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
SAJIMON CHARTHANKALAYIL – Respondent
MACA NO. 2150 OF 2013 | WP(C) NO. 21248 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW, SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI
For the Respondents: SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR
Compensation calculations under motor vehicle laws must consider appropriate multipliers and comply with policy conditions.
Headnote:The judgment addresses the appeal against the compensation awarded by the tribunal in a motor accident claim, as per relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act. The court examined evidence regarding the fatal accident of a motorcycle rider and the subsequent quantum of compensation. The main issues included the correct application of policy conditions and the calculation of the compensation amount. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, focusing on the age multiplier and deductions applied by the tribunal, leading the court to raise the awarded amount to ₹4,57,833 with applicable interest rates. In this case, the core issues were whether policy violations were valid grounds for contesting the compensation and the appropriateness of the multiplier used for loss of dependency. The court reiterated that compensation must be assessed based on the deceased's age and applicable statutory provisions. The resulting ratio emphasized that compensation calculations should prioritize fairness in accordance with legal standards. The final ruling adjusted the compensation amount in favor of the appellants and authorized recovery measures against the respondents to ensure payment within a mandated timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. duty of care in vehicle operation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. review of compensation calculation process. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. determination of compensation adjustments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The afore writ petition is filed by the father of the owner of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-37-7338 who was the second respondent, challenging Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar against the recovery proceedings initiated by the insurer to recover the amount awarded by the tribunal in O.P (MV) No.168 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala.
2. According to the appellants/claimants, on
31.10.2009, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-6/C-2564, dashed with a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-37-7338 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner came, thereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming compensation.
3. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were the insured, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The 3rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also denied negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was contended that there were policy violations. Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,66,900/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent-insurer and to recover it from the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally. WP(C) no. 21248 of 2018 is filed by the father of the second respondent challenging the recovery proceedings against him and MACA 2150 of 2013 is filed by the claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21248 of 2018 submits that recovery proceedings were initiated against the immovable property belonging to the father of the second respondent, who is the owner of the lorry. The tribunal granted the insurer to recover the award amount from the owner for violation of policy conditions. The petitioner relied on Exts. P1 and P2 and submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property under attachment and his son as of now has no rights over the properties and sought for lifting of attachment of the property. In the writ petition the vehicle number is mistakenly shown. However, as per Ext.P1 and P2, it is seen that the owner of the property and the building is Ulahannan S/o. Xavier and not Sojimon who is the defaulter. In Exts P3 and P4, the requisition authority is First Addl. District and Sessions Court, and MACT Pala. Since, the land as well as the building is in the name of Xavier Ulahannan and not Sojimon, unless there is some document to prove that the properties belong to the defaulter, they cannot proceed against the property belonging to the petitioner father.
6. Hence, I find that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be set aside and the writ petition is to be allowed.
7. In MACA No.2150/2013, the learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Loss of dependency :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act . Instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the tribunal has deducted 1/2. As per the second schedule to the Act, I find that the expenses to be deducted is 1/3rd since the claim petition is filed
