BY AD vs SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2481/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2481 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2013 IN OPMV NO.963 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA/ I ADDL. M.A.C.T. /M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA. APPELLANTS: 1 2 3 GEETHA, W/O LATE RAJENDRAN ACHARY, AMAL BHAVAN, PARAKARA THEKKEKARA MURI, THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. AMAL (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJENDRAN ACHARY, AMAL BHAVAN, PARAKARA THEKKEKARA MURI, THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. ANJU (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS D/O LATE RAJENDRAN ACHARY, AMAL BHAVAN, PARAKARA THEKKEKARA MURI, THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE (MINORS 2ND AND 3RD APPELLANTS REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER IST APPELLANT) BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 RESPONDENTS: -4- 1 2 RAJAN PILLAI, KOLADETHU HOUSE, PUNNAKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY – 690 518. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1178/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -5- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.963/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta are the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.2481/2014 and the 3rd respondent in the appeal is the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1178/2014. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and mother of the deceased by name Rajendran, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2006. According to them, on 30.05.2006, at about 9 a.m., while the deceased was riding a scooter along the Kaippattoor- Ezhamkulam public road, a bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on

10.06.2006.

3. The 1st respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.12,00,000/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -6-

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 the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,96,872/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners and Respondent No.3 preferred these appeals.

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.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurer/appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1178/2014, and Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -7- of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as carpenter by profession, earning Rs.7,500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. In order to prove the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. From the evidence of PW1, it is revealed that the deceased was a carpenter by profession. However, there is no reliable evidence to prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the petition. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2006 will come to Rs.5,500/-. So, the deceased being a carpenter by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.6,500/-.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 42 years. Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 14, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 4 (No.of) dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/4 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.10,23,750/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -8-

13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection. The learned Senior Counsel who is appearing for the 3rd respondent would argue that the tribunal was not justified in adding 30% of the income towards future prospects and awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the head loss of love and affection.

14. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents, children and spouse) are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (48,400 x 4).

15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others, (2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted.

16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -9- petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case after 12 days from the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-

17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.

18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.13,80,332/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No . Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 6,55,200/- 10,23,750/- 2 Transport to hospital 3 Extra nourishment 4 Bystander’s expenses 5 Damage to clothes 6 Medical expenses 7 Funeral expenses 8 Pain and sufferings and loss of amenities 5,000/- 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- 87,672/- 25,000/- 15,000/- 5,000/- 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- 87,672/- 18,150/- 30,000/- 9 Loss of love and 2,00,000/- Nil affection 10 Loss of consortium 11 Loss of estate 1,00,000/- 5,000/- 1,93,600/- 18,150/- Total 10,96,872/- 13,80,332/- Enhanced Rs.2,83,450/- M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -10-

19. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to deposit a total sum of Rs.13,80,332/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty thousand three hundred and thirty two Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 170 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs in MACA 2481 of 2014, within a period of two months from today. In MACA 1178/2014 no costs. 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. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE ADS

BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2481/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2481 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2013 IN OPMV NO.963 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA/ I ADDL. M.A.C.T. /M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA. APPELLANTS: 1 2 3 GEETHA, W/O LATE RAJENDRAN ACHARY, AMAL BHAVAN, PARAKARA THEKKEKARA MURI, THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. AMAL (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJENDRAN ACHARY, AMAL BHAVAN, PARAKARA THEKKEKARA MURI, THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. ANJU (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS D/O LATE RAJENDRAN ACHARY, AMAL BHAVAN, PARAKARA THEKKEKARA MURI, THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE (MINORS 2ND AND 3RD APPELLANTS REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER IST APPELLANT) BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 RESPONDENTS: -4- 1 2 RAJAN PILLAI, KOLADETHU HOUSE, PUNNAKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY – 690 518. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1178/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -5- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.963/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta are the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.2481/2014 and the 3rd respondent in the appeal is the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1178/2014. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and mother of the deceased by name Rajendran, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2006. According to them, on 30.05.2006, at about 9 a.m., while the deceased was riding a scooter along the Kaippattoor- Ezhamkulam public road, a bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on

10.06.2006.

3. The 1st respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.12,00,000/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -6-

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 the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,96,872/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners and Respondent No.3 preferred these appeals.

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.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurer/appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1178/2014, and Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -7- of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as carpenter by profession, earning Rs.7,500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. In order to prove the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. From the evidence of PW1, it is revealed that the deceased was a carpenter by profession. However, there is no reliable evidence to prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the petition. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2006 will come to Rs.5,500/-. So, the deceased being a carpenter by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.6,500/-.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 42 years. Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 14, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 4 (No.of) dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/4 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.10,23,750/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -8-

13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection. The learned Senior Counsel who is appearing for the 3rd respondent would argue that the tribunal was not justified in adding 30% of the income towards future prospects and awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the head loss of love and affection.

14. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the dependents (parents, children and spouse) are entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (48,400 x 4).

15. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others, (2020)9 SCC 644. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted.

16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -9- petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case after 12 days from the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-

17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.

18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.13,80,332/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No . Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 6,55,200/- 10,23,750/- 2 Transport to hospital 3 Extra nourishment 4 Bystander’s expenses 5 Damage to clothes 6 Medical expenses 7 Funeral expenses 8 Pain and sufferings and loss of amenities 5,000/- 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- 87,672/- 25,000/- 15,000/- 5,000/- 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- 87,672/- 18,150/- 30,000/- 9 Loss of love and 2,00,000/- Nil affection 10 Loss of consortium 11 Loss of estate 1,00,000/- 5,000/- 1,93,600/- 18,150/- Total 10,96,872/- 13,80,332/- Enhanced Rs.2,83,450/- M.A.C.A.Nos.1178 and 2481 of 2014 -10-

19. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to deposit a total sum of Rs.13,80,332/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty thousand three hundred and thirty two Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 170 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs in MACA 2481 of 2014, within a period of two months from today. In MACA 1178/2014 no costs. 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. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE ADS