Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 309 (KER)

K. K. BABU v. THOMAS

2025-02-18

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.442/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor are the appellants herein. The 1 st respondent in O.P. is the appellant in MACA No.2030/2018. (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 husband and three children of the deceased by name Molly, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.03.2009. According to them, on 26.03.2009, at about 3:20 PM, the Tipper lorry KL-45/7852 driven by the 2 nd respondent along the Angamaly – Chalakkudy N.H road, in a rash and negligent manner, had hit down the motorcycle ridden by the 1 st petitioner with the deceased as pillion rider and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and later on she succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. The 1 st respondent is the owner and 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2 nd respondent, awarded in compensation Rs.9,01,000/- and directed the 3 rd respondent to pay the same. Further, the Tribunal permitted the 3 rd respondent to recover the compensation from respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that at the time of the accident the 2 nd respondent did not have valid driving licence to drive the Tipper Lorry. 4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred MACA 1442 of 2015, while aggrieved by the award permitting the 3 rd respondent to recover the compensation from the 1 st respondent, he preferred MACA 2030 of 2018. 5. Now the points that arises for consideration are the following: 1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2) Whether the award permitting the 3 rd respondent to recover the compensation from the 1 st respondent is liable to be interfered with? 6. Heard Smt.Anupama Johny, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.N.S.Najeeb, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 7. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. 6. Heard Smt.Anupama Johny, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.N.S.Najeeb, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 7. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent tried to establish that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle also. However, it is to be noted that in this case the police after investigation filed charge sheet which was marked as Ext.A5, against the 2 nd respondent. As per Ext.A5, the 2 nd respondent was responsible for the above accident and as such it is prima facie evidence of negligence on his part. In the absence of any contra evidence, in the light of Ext.A5, it is to be held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2 nd respondent. 8. 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 a coolie, earning Rs. 7000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4500/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 9. 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 2009 will come to Rs.7000/-. Since the petitioners could not prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7000/-. 10. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 36 years. Therefore, 40% 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 15, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, 40% 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 15, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Since the deceased was married who left behind 4 dependants, 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.13,23,000/-. 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,50,000/- 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 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, the petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (48,400 x4). 12. 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. 13. 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, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25000/-. 14. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 15. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,83,900/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. 14. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 15. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,83,900/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. S. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Funeral Expenses 25,000 18150 2 Transportation to hospital 5,000 5,000 3 Damages to Clothing 1,000 1000 4 Pain and suffering 10000 25000 5 Loss of Dependency 6,07,500 13,23,000 6 Loss of Consortium 100000 193600 (48400*x4) 7 Loss of Love and Affection 1,50,000 ---- 8 Loss of Estate 2500 18150 Total 9,01,000/- 15,83,900/- Enhanced 6,82,900 16. According to the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, the 2 nd respondent had valid driving licence to drive only light motor vehicles and no driving licence to drive a heavy vehicle like tipper lorry. As per Ext.B2 driving licence of the 2 nd respondent, he was authorized to drive only light vehicles, three wheeler and motorcycle with gear. As per Ext.B1 RC particulars, the gross weight of the Tipper lorry is 8800 Kgs, which is beyond the purview of LMV and as such it is to be held that, at the time of accident the 2 nd respondent had no valid driving licence and as such the Tribunal was justified in permitting the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioners and thereafter to recover the same from the 1 st respondent. 17. In the result, these Appeals are disposed of directing the 3 rd respondent to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,83,900/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Eighty Three Thousand and Nine Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. After payment, the 3 rd respondent is permitted to recover the compensation from the 1 st respondent. 18. 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.