Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
BINDU, WIDOW OF ASHOKDAS, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALARIKKAL HOUSE, MANJAKADU PO., SHORANUR – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.KANDAN EZHUTHASSAN, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, MARAKULAMBU, KUDALLUR.P.O, PALLAVOOR VIA, PALAKKAD-678688 – Respondent
MACA NO. 929 OF 2017 | MACA NO. 4477 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD
For the Respondents: DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SRI.JOSEPH GOPURAN, SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
The judgment reaffirms the need for fair compensation calculations based on established legal precedents for income assessment in accident claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Sections regarding compensation for accident - Claimants sought total compensation of ₹16,38,000/- for loss due to the death of the deceased in an accident; tribunal awarded ₹9,28,000/- with interest. (Para 3)
(B) Determination of income - The court refixed the deceased's income from ₹5,000 to ₹7,500/- based on evidence provided (salary certificate). (Para 5)
(C) Enhancement of compensation - The compensation for loss of dependency was recalculated with added future prospects as per judicial precedents. (Para 5)
(D) Duplication of compensation - The court deleted amounts awarded under loss of love and affection, noting it overlaps with loss of consortium. (Para 5) (E) Final compensation - An additional ₹2,42,350/- was granted over tribunal's original award, with interest at 7%, ensuring justice for claimants while maintaining a lawful framework. (Paras 6 and 7).
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred when the deceased was riding a motorcycle and was hit by a tempo. The claimants sought compensation, stating the vehicle was being driven rashly. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The compensation listed was adjusted in light of various judicial precedents regarding income and future prospects. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the owner was liable for compensation and the appropriateness of the compensation sum awarded. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal's estimate of compensation considered the deceased’s income, future prospects, and legal principles underpinning compensation assessments. (Para 6)
Result: Appeals allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of accident and claim for compensation. (Para 2) |
| 2. disputes regarding liability and assessment of compensation. (Para 3) |
| 3. court observations on compensatory norms and adjustments. (Para 4) |
| 4. the ratio and principles adopted for determining compensation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. final compensation awarded and legal directives. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated
17.10.2016 in O.P.(MV) No.561 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.929 of 2017 is filed by the claimants in the O.P seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas MACA No.4477 of 2019 is filed by the 1st respondent in the O.P challenging the liability to pay the compensation as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. The facts of the case are as follows: According to the claimants, on 30.11.2009 at about 08.00 am, while the deceased was riding the motorcycle, a tempo trax bearing registration No.KL-9/H- 9813 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹16,38,000/-.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle who appeared but no written statement was filed. The 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denied liability contending that the second respondent had no driving license and badge to drive the tempo trax at the time of accident. Before the tribunal,Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹9,28,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3rd respondent insurer and directed to further recover the same from respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the amount awarded and the liability, the insurer has filed the appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned counsel for the owner/1st respondent and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/owner raised a contention that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and the vehicle was already sold by the first respondent. However, on a perusal of the records, it is seen that the registration certificate stood in the name of the 1st respondent/owner and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel is not legally sustainable and as found by the tribunal, he is liable to pay the amount.
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹7,500/- was claimed as the income, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the income of the deceased, who was a salesman. The learned counsel also submitted that in the FIS it is stated that the deceased was working in K.J.Footwear and relied on Ext.A8 salary certificate, wherein the income of the deceased was shown as ₹7,500/-. The learned counsel for the claimants 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 2009 is fixed at ₹7,000/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Considering the fact that he was a salesman in a footwear shop, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased as ₹7,500/-.
Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned counsel appearing for the owner/1st respondent submitted that
