The High Court · 2025

BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -2- THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -3- J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025) The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.85/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara are the appellant herein. (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 daughters of the deceased by name Nafeesa, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

20.09.2015. According to them, on 20.09.2015, at about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased along with his husband were trying to cross the zebra line near 20th Mile bus stop, a car bearing Registration No.KL- 61/B-1094 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked them down and as a result of which both of them sustained serious injuries and later on she succumbed to the injuries, on the same day.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd 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.31,75,750/- limited to Rs.18,00,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -4-

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 A15. 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.7,34,000/- 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.Zubair Pulikool, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

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 of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to them, M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -5- the deceased was working as a tailor, earning Rs.500/- per day, but the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.8,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. It is true that the petitioners could not prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP. However from the evidence it is proved that the deceased was a tailor by profession. 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 2015 will come to Rs.10000/-. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a tailor by profession, her notional income is fixed at Rs.11000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 49 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 13, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 3 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -6- circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.14,30,000/-.

13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection. 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.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3).

14. 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.

15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that an amount of Rs.25,000/- to be awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’.

16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -7- other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.

17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.16,42,500/-, 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 6,48,000/- 14,30,000/- 2 Transport to hospital 3 Damage to clothings 4 Pain and sufferings 5 Loss of love and affection 6 Funeral expenses 7 Loss of estate 8 Loss of consortium 5,000/- 1,000/- ... 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- …. 5,000/- 1,000/- 25,000/- Nil 18,150/- 18,150/- 1,45,200/- Total 7,34,000/- 16,42,500/- Enhanced Rs.9,08,500/-

18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,42,500/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs forty two thousand and 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 realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -8- 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. ADS Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE

BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -2- THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -3- J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025) The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.85/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara are the appellant herein. (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 daughters of the deceased by name Nafeesa, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

20.09.2015. According to them, on 20.09.2015, at about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased along with his husband were trying to cross the zebra line near 20th Mile bus stop, a car bearing Registration No.KL- 61/B-1094 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked them down and as a result of which both of them sustained serious injuries and later on she succumbed to the injuries, on the same day.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd 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.31,75,750/- limited to Rs.18,00,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -4-

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 A15. 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.7,34,000/- 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.Zubair Pulikool, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

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 of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to them, M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -5- the deceased was working as a tailor, earning Rs.500/- per day, but the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.8,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. It is true that the petitioners could not prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP. However from the evidence it is proved that the deceased was a tailor by profession. 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 2015 will come to Rs.10000/-. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a tailor by profession, her notional income is fixed at Rs.11000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 49 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 13, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married who left behind 3 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -6- circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.14,30,000/-.

13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection. 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.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3).

14. 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.

15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that an amount of Rs.25,000/- to be awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’.

16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -7- other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.

17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.16,42,500/-, 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 6,48,000/- 14,30,000/- 2 Transport to hospital 3 Damage to clothings 4 Pain and sufferings 5 Loss of love and affection 6 Funeral expenses 7 Loss of estate 8 Loss of consortium 5,000/- 1,000/- ... 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- …. 5,000/- 1,000/- 25,000/- Nil 18,150/- 18,150/- 1,45,200/- Total 7,34,000/- 16,42,500/- Enhanced Rs.9,08,500/-

18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,42,500/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs forty two thousand and 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 realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). M.A.C.A.No.4079 of 2018 -8- 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. ADS Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE