Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
LEELA, MUPPATHIL, PUNNAPRA PO, ALAPPUZHA – Appellant
Versus
JITHU SURENDRAN ALUMVEETTIL, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688001 – Respondent
MACA NO. 2165 OF 2017 | OPMV NO.1172 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI.A.R.DILEEP, SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL, SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA, SMT.SARAH SALVY
The court clarified the methodology for determining compensation in motor accident claims, emphasizing loss of dependency and conventional heads as per established precedents.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to the appeal against the award dated 03.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, where the claimants sought enhanced compensation post an accident. The court referenced multiple judgments including Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Pranay Sethi to determine compensation adjustments. The court framed issues on quantum and reaffirmed the principles for assessing loss of dependency and conventional damages. Ultimately, the appeal was partially allowed, revising the original compensation awarded.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.1172 of
2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 02.06.2011 at about 07.15 pm, while the deceased was standing by the side of NH 47, a motorcycle ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result of the accident he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 16.06.2011. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹7,05,000/- limited to ₹7,00,000/-.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the rider and the owner of the offending vehicle, respectively. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 1st respondent though entered appearance, did not file any written statement. The 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and contended that the accident was not intimated and the vehicular records including the driving licence of the 1st respondent were not produced for verification. Before the tribunal Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹5,06,064/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the 3rd respondent being the insurer and directed to recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants is mainly challenging the award under the following heads:-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹7,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a coconut climber. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2011 is fixed at ₹8,000/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹8,000/-.
Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the claimants are not entitled to add future prospects to the income fixed. Thus, following the judgments of the Apex Court 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: ₹5,76,000/- (8,000x12x9x2/3). The tribunal has already paid an amount of ₹2,51,964/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹3,24,036/- under the head loss of dependency.
Compensation for funeral expenses :- The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submits that the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹25,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under the conventional heads ought to have been fixed at ₹15,000/- each. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award the appellants a total compensation of ₹15,000/- under the head funeral expenses. Accordingly, there shall be a deduction of ₹10,000/- under the afore head.
Loss of
