Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27698
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Appellant
Versus
SMT.MINI W/O.LATE SABU – Respondent
MACA NO. 653 OF 2015|MACA NO. 224 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW| For the Respondents: SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH| SMT.K.S.SANTHI
Compensation determined in motor accident claims must reflect accurate income, dependents, and future prospects, avoiding duplicative awards for similar losses.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Negligence and compensation in motor accident claims - The accident occurred on 12.04.2008, resulting in the death of the victim from injuries sustained while riding on a motorcycle which was hit by a car driven negligently. The Tribunal awarded ₹24,12,000/- as compensation with 8% interest, which was contested by the insurance company as excessive. The insured was a permanent employee with a monthly income of ₹10,800/-, and the tribunal correctly computed future prospects and dependents. Court reduced funeral expenses to ₹15,000/- and loss of estate to ₹15,000/-, following principles from precedents stating that duplicative awards for loss of consortium and love are not permissible. The award was enhanced to ₹24,62,150/-, with proper deductions and adjustments for claimants and interest provisions established. (Paras 2-19)
Findings of Court:
The compensation amount was enhanced to ₹24,62,150/- by the High Court, reflecting proper consideration of statutes and guidelines from Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 18, 19)
Issues: The main issues included the victim's income, the adjustability of compensation under various heads, and the legality of deductions towards personal expenses and the insurance company's contestation regarding the award's amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court confirmed the Tribunal's findings as appropriate and upheld the appropriateness of taking into account future prospects and dependent claims without duplicating awards.
Result: Appeals partially allowed, with the insurance company required to pay the enhanced compensation amount.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident facts leading to claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dispute on negligence and compensation. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. evaluation of compensation based on evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 4. ratio of compensation assessment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final order and payment direction. (Para 17 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 06.11.2014 in O.P.(MV) No.344 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N. Paravur, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A. No.653 of 2015 is filed by the 3rdrespondent/insurer in the original petition, whereas M.A.C.A. No.224 of 2016 is filed by the claimants 1 to 3 in the OP. 2. According to the claimants, on 12.04.2008 at about 8.30 p.m., while the victim sabu was travelling as a pillion rider of a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-50/4582 ridden by his friend, a car bearing Reg. No.KL-10/AA-7007 driven by the 2ndrespondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and as a result of the accident, the victim sabu sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on 13.04.2008. The claimants/ the wife, minor children and parents of the victim approached the tribunal claiming compensation underSection 166of theMotor Vehicles Act.
3. During the pendency of the original petition, claimants 4 and 5 namely the parents of the deceased died.
4. Before the tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2, who are the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained absent and they were set ex parte.
5. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement, admitting valid insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence on the part of the car driver. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle.
6. Before the tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the evidence and materials on record, awarded a total sum of ₹24,12,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum with proportionate cost from the date of petition till realization.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.
8. The insurance company has preferred the M.A.C.A No.653 of 2015 contending that the amount awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant; that the monthly income of the deceased taken by the tribunal for assessing the compensation is on a higher side and therefore, the amount awarded as compensation is excessive. Further, it was contended that the tribunal was not justified in taking 50% future prospects for the deceased as he was not having a permanent occupation or steady income. It was also contended that the deceased had only three dependents and therefore the tribunal went wrong in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the victim was the bread winner of the family consisting of his wife, minor children and parents.
10. The accident is admitted by the insurance company. The evidence on record would show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg. No.KL-10/AA-7007 driven by the 2nd respondent which was insured with the 3rd respondent.
11. The specific case of the 1st claimant, who is the widow of the deceased Sabu, is that her husband was toddy tapper and he was employed by the Toddy Tappers Co- operative Society at Quilandy in Kozhikode. In support of the said case, claimants have produced Ext.A7 certificate and examined PW1, the Secretary of the Quilandy Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, who issued Ext.A7. In Ext.A7 it has been certified that the deceased sabu was drawing a monthly income of ₹10,800/-. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.A7 certificate. Thus the learned tribunal was right in taking the monthly income
