Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
SHABNA S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN (LATE), MUHAMMED SHAMEEM ALI MINOR S/.LATE SHAMSUDHEEN, FATHIMA LIYA MINOR D/O.LATE SHAMSUDHEEN, MUHAMMED RABEEA MINOR S/O.LATE SHAMSUDHEEN, MUHAMMED YASEEN MINOR S/O.LATE SHAMSUDHEEN, AMINA AMINA HAIJUMMA W/O.ALI – Appellant
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. – Respondent
MACA NO. 1916 OF 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN, SMT.A.D.DIVYA
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

The case emphasizes proper assessment of compensation in motor accident claims, factoring in future income prospects and avoiding duplication in compensation heads.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case predominately revolved around motor accident claims, specifically regarding the assessment of compensation under relevant sections addressing loss of dependency and associated damages. Facts of the Case: The appeal arose from O.P.(MV) No. 603/2014, with claimants seeking enhancement of compensation following the death of Shamsudheen in a motorcycle accident on 24.11.2013. The High Court evaluated the compensation awarded by the tribunal, primarily disputing the computed notional income and ancillary heads.

Findings of Court:
The Court agreed to modify the previous award, enhancing certain amounts while simultaneously reducing others based on stipulated judicial precedents.

Issues: The court framed the core issue concerning the appropriateness of the compensation amount and assessment methods governing loss of dependency.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of aligning compensation determination with the wage structure, future prospects, and precedents set forth in trademark rulings such as 'Pranay Sethi'.

Result: The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the tribunal's award and granting additional compensation of ₹6,32,500/- with interest @7% p.a.

Table of Content
1. claim for enhancement of compensation due to the death of the deceased in an accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for adjusting compensation based on notional income and other factors. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observations on the prudence of the initial tribunal compensation. (Para 6)
4. final modifications to the compensation amount awarded to the claimants. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants in O.P.(MV) No.

603/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 24.11.2013 at about

5.45 pm., while the deceased Shamsudheen, was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-11-AH-171 from Perumanna to Kozhikode, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TAN-6714 driven by the second respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 29.11.2013. The legal representatives of the deceased/claimants approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The respondent 1/the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/driver though filed vakalath, did not file a written statement. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A5 & Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹17,42,000/- with interest @9% per annum against the respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased who alleged to be a Manager in a hotel, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel relied on Ext.A4 salary certificate which was issued by PW1. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that though PW1 was summoned in the B1 summons, it was specifically directed to produce the ledger to prove the income paid to the deceased. The tribunal found that though PW1 was summoned, no document was produced by PW1 to prove the income paid to him. Accordingly, the tribunal took the income as ₹5,000/-. Considering the fact that he was a Manager in a hotel, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹10,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident, by adding 25% future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], to the income now fixed, the amount will be ₹12,500/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that no future prospects were added to the income fixed by the tribunal. Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re-fixed as ₹12,500/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is re-calculated thus (12,500 x 12 x 15 x 3/4) ₹16,87,500/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹6,75,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹10,12,500/- under the head loss of dependency.

Funeral expenses :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled only for a total compens

Click Here to Read the rest of this document