The High Court · 2025

BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 JOSE Y. MACA NO.1589 OF 2015 2 S/O.YOHANNAN, EBENEZAR VEEDU, VALLIKKAVU, ELAMPAL PO, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691305 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN 691001 BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.1589 OF 2015 3 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.481/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Layamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.07.2010. The above O.P was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioners, on 03.07.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle, the motorcycle fell into a gutter and as a result of which, sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence MACA NO.1589 OF 2015 4 Exts.A1 to A8. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,54,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants and Smt.P.K.Santhamma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company.

10. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 40, and the monthly income claimed was Rs.36000/- per month. Presumably, the monthly income was limited to Rs.36000/- per month to bring the claim under section 163A of M.V.Act, the annual outer income limit of which is Rs.40000/-. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manger, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. MACA NO.1589 OF 2015 5 [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional monthly income of a coolie, in the year 2010 will come to Rs.7500/- per month. In the above circumstance, the notional annual income of the petitioner for the purpose of assessing the compensation due under section 163A of the M.V.Act is fixed at Rs.40000/-.

11. On the date of the accident the deceased was aged 40 and 3 months. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashikala and Others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another (2015) 9 SCC 150, the learned Counsel would argue that till the victim completes 41 years, age is to be taken as 40. In paragraph 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs 16,82,310 (Rs 1,20,165 x 14).”

12. As per the IInd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased within the MACA NO.1589 OF 2015 6 age group 35 but not exceeding 40 years, with annual income of Rs.40,000/- is Rs.6,00,000/-. From which, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, after deducting 1/3, the balance will come to Rs.4,00,000/-. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,54,000/- is on the lower side and hence it is enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-.

13. As per the IInd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners can claim only Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate. Therefore the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.25000/- on the head funeral expense and Rs.5000/- on the head loss of estate. Since the claimants are not the spouse of the deceased, they are not entitled to get any compensation on the head loss of consortium.

14. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.4,04,500/-.

15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,04,500/- (Rupees four lakh four thousand five hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two MACA NO.1589 OF 2015 7 months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%)

16. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Pvv Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE