Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented By Its Regional Manager – Appellant
Versus
Vijayan Nair S., S/o. Sankara Pillai – Respondent
MACA No. 694 of 2015, MACA No. 1639 of 2015
Decided On : 10-04-2026
For the Appellant : Sri. George Cherian (SR.), Smt. K.S. Santhi
For the Respondent: Smt. Annie M. Abraham, Sri. T.K. Biju (Manjinikara).
The court established that in compensation claims for fatal accidents, future prospects and proper income consideration must guide the assessment of damages while ensuring the awarded amounts reflect just compensation principles.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to fatal accident involving motorcycle and stage carrier - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,40,000/- with 9% interest, but the court re-evaluated notional income and applicable multiplier leading to a reduced compensation assessment while dismissing the appeal from the insurance company. (Paras 1-22)
(B) Compensation Assessment - Court emphasized the consideration of future prospects, relevant case law on loss of dependency, and necessity for accurate loss of estate evaluations guided by Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 10-16)
(C) Legal Representation - Claimants' representation underscored disagreement with the original award's quantum, while the insurance company's appeal contested the compensation's magnitude. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award was partly revised, with adjustments made in the compensation calculation based on the victim's age and potential income.
Issues: Determination of just compensation amount considering present and future loss of dependency.
Ratio Decidendi: The apportioning of damages due to negligence was affirmed, with a focus on future prospects and correct multipliers per set legal precedent.
Result: MACA No. 694 of 2015 dismissed, MACA No. 1639 of 2015 allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. awards are being contested by both parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. final order on compensation and appeal outcomes. (Para 5 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. insurance company claims the award is excessive. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's duty to reassess award amount. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. determination of compensation based on victim's profile. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.
These two appeals have been preferred from the very same award passed in OP(MV)No.266/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta.
2. M.A.C.A. 1639 of 2015 has been preferred by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate whereas M.A.C.A. 694 of 2015 has been preferred by the insurance company on the ground that the amounts awarded under various heads are exorbitant.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this appeal as claimants and respondents as in the O.P.
4. The claimants are the parents and brother of deceased Sujith V. Nair. They filed OP(MV).No.266/2008 claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that on 31.12.2007 at 10.15 a.m., while the victim was riding a bike bearing registration No.KL 3 P 8784, a stage carrier bearing registration No.KL 3 M 6940 driven by R1 hit on the motorcycle and in the accident the victim sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the stage carrier. R2 is the RC owner of the stage carrier and R3 is the insurer. R1 to R3 are liable to pay the compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, R1 and R2 remained absent and they were set ex parte.
6. R3 filed written statement stating that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, but it was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Existence of the valid insurance policy is admitted by the insurer. But it was contended that there was violation of policy conditions and therefore insurance company is entitled to recover the amount from the RC owner after payment of the award amount. It was also contended that the amount claimed under various heads are exorbitant.
7. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs.20,40,000/- with 9% interest per annum and cost.
8. The point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court.
9. Admittedly, on 31.12.2007 at 10.15 a.m while the victim was riding a motor vehicle, a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL 3 M 6940 driven by R1 hit on the motorcycle causing fatal injuries to the victim and victim succumbed to the injuries. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the stage carriage by R1.
10. The Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.12,000/-. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the notional income of Rs.12,000/- taken by the Tribunal is very low. He contended that Tribunal ought to have taken the income at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nanu K v. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2024 KHC 7373, wherein the notional income of a final year engineering student, who died in an accident in the year 2015 was taken as Rs.22,000/- for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency.
11. Victim was aged 20 at the time of accident and according to the claimants, he was 5th semester B Tech student of Sree Buddha College of Engineering College, Pattoor. To substantiate the same, the claimants have produced Ext.A8 certificate. The records would reveal that he was an Engineering student who had a bright future.
12. Having regard to the fact that victim was the 5th semester engineering student with a bright future, his notional income is taken as Rs.16,000/- per month for the purpose of assessing compensation.
13. The victim was aged 20 years at the time of
