Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J
KESSY ZACHARIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
MACA NO. 2782 OF 2016 | MACA.2094/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA), SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM
For the Respondents: SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN., SHRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
Compensation for motor accident claims must reflect adequate consideration of notional income and dependency losses, along with adherence to legal precedents guiding fair compensation assessments.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Motor accident claim - Injury sustained by victim leading to death - Claim for compensation challenged on grounds of both inadequacy and excessiveness by claimants and respondents, respectively - Tribunal's award of Rs.3,52,000/- with 9% interest was reassessed by the Court. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 7, 8).
(B) Compensation calculation - Tribunal's consideration of notional income found insufficient - Court increased notional income from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- based on standard guidelines - Multiplier of 5 applied for dependency losses. (Paras 10, 11).
(C) Deduction for non-compensable heads such as pain and suffering - Court did not award separate compensation for loss of love and affection. (Paras 12, 14, 16).
(D) No reversal of the Tribunal's findings deemed necessary; minor numerical adjustments made - Resultantly, appeals were dismissed with no costs. (Paras 18).
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's assessment of compensation was modified only slightly, reflecting a negligible adjustment of Rs.20/-.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of compensation awarded under various heads and the appropriateness of income assessments for the aged victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity for fair compensation according to established legal principles, guided by precedents, ensuring adjustments were made where justified.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals against tribunal award (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the accident and claims made (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. position of parties regarding compensation adequacy (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. reassessment of compensation heads (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. final decision on appeals dismissing them (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
These two appeals have been preferred from the award passed in OP(MV)No.675/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta.
2. M.A.C.A. No. 2782 of 2016 has been preferred by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the amount awarded is meager and inadequate.
3. M.A.C.A. No. 2094 of 2015 has been preferred by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on the ground that the amounts awarded under various heads are exorbitant.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this appeal as claimants and respondents as in the O.P.
5. The claimants filed OP(MV).No.675/2005 underSection 166of theMotor Vehicles Acton the ground that on 01.04.2005 at about 6.50 a.m., while the victim was walking along Pandalam – Adoor M.C. Road and when he reached near Chitra hospital, Pandalam, the bus bearing registration No.KL- 15/ 4828 driven by 2ndrespondent knocked down him causing grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R2, who was the driver of the bus. R1 is the owner of the bus. Hence, they sought compensation from respondents.
6. 1st respondent filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. It was also contended that the amounts claimed under various heads are excessive.
7. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs.3,52,000/- with 9% interest per annum and cost.
8. According to the claimants, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are inadequate and it is not a just and fair compensation; that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are very meager and therefore, they seek enhancement of the compensation amount, whereas the respondents would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are excessive.
9. In view of the rival contentions, at first, let us see whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court.
10. The victim was aged 72. According to the claimants, the victim was a pensioner. The learned Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.4,000/- per month for assessing the compensation.
11. The notional income of the victim taken by the Tribunal is on a lower side. Therefore, the notional income of the victim is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. The victim had three dependents. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased [ Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009(6)SCC 121)]. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, his monthly contribution to the family would be ₹3,333/- [5,000-1667]. Since the victim was aged 72, the multiplier applicable to him is 5. Accordingly, under the head loss of dependency, claimants are entitled to ₹1,99,980/- (₹3,333x12x5).
12. Under the head funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹25,000/-. In view of the guidelines of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] claimants are entitled to only ₹15,000/- under the said head. Accordingly, a reduction of ₹10,000/- is to be made under the said head from the award passed by the Tribunal.
13. Under the head loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹5,000/-. Claimants are entitled to get ₹15,000/- under the head loss of estate (See Pranay Sethi’s case). Accordingly, an additional amount of ₹10,000/-
is awarded under the said head.
14. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹50,000/- under the head loss of lov
