Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1067 (KER)

Alice Devasia v. Rosy Mathew, W/o Mathew

2025-04-11

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.372/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, are the appellants 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 wife and daughter of the deceased by name Devasia, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.10.2011. According to them, on 05.10.2011, at about 6 p.m., while the deceased was riding a scooter, a bus bearing reg.no.KL 36/670 driven by Respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day. 3. The 1 st respondent is the owner, the 2 nd respondent is the driver and 3 rd 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.15,56,000/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-. 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A5 and B1. 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.5,46,000/- 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.P.M.Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K. Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd 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. 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 him, the deceased was working as Auto consultant, earning Rs.15000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-.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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Though, it was claimed that the petitioner was an autoconsultant and getting a monthly income Rs.15000/-, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the same. Therefore, as per the dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8000/-. 12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 59 years. Therefore, 10% 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 9, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Since the deceased was married who left behind 2 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 circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.6,33,600/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.75000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10000/- 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. 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.96800/- (48,400 x 2). 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’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of 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.25000/-. 16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on 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.7,93,700 /- , 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 Transport to hospital 1000 1000 2 Damage to clothing and articles 1000 1000 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Compensation for loss of dependency 414000 633600 5 Pain and sufferings 10000 25000 6 Loss of love and affection 10000 ------- 7 Loss of estate 10000 18150 8 Loss of consortium 75000 96800 Total 546000 793700 Enhanced Rs. 247700 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.7,93,700 /- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, excluding interest for a period of 205 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). (enhanced compensation will carry interest @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.