Kerala High Court
Abdul Kareem vs Ali Askar @ Ali Ashar on 5 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
1
2025:KER:59109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 292 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.01.2020 IN OP(MV)NO.793 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
OTTAPPALAM.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED,
FATHER OF DECEASED JASEEM MUHAMMED.
2 ASIYA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O.ABDUL KAREEM,
MOTHER OF DECEASED JASEEM MUHAMMED.
3 SHAMNA,
AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O.ABDUL KAREEM,
SISTER OF DECEASED JASEEM MUHAMMED.
4 MUHAMMED SHAHEEN,
AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, BROTHER OF DECEASED JASEEM
MUHAMMED. (ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT
KAVUNGATHODI HOUSE, SHIRATTAKULAM, EDATHANATTUKARA,
ALANALLUR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD).
BY ADV SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ALI ASKAR @ ALI ASHAR,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.USMAN, CHOLAKKAL (H), PALLIKUNNU P.O.,
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
2
2025:KER:59109
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 583.
2 GOPALAKRISHNAN,
S/O.KRISHNAN, NILATHUMARIL (H), THENKARA P.O.,
MANNARKKAD, PIN-678 582.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
P.B.NO.12, D BLOCK, PAZHERY PLAZA, KODATHIPADI,
MANNARKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 582.
BY ADV SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 05.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.295/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
3
2025:KER:59109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 295 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.01.2020 IN OP(MV)NO.794 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
OTTAPPALAM.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SREEDHARAN,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
FATHER OF DECEASED MANIKANDA SREELAL.
2 SINDHU,
AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O.SREEDHARAN,
MOTHER OF DECEASED MANIKANDA SREELAL.
3 MANIKANDA SREERAG,
AGED 12 YEARS,(MINOR),
S/O.SREEDHARAN, BROTHER OF DECEASED MANIKANDA
SREELAL. (DOB 19.12.2008).
4 LAKSHMI,
AGED 17 YEARS,(MINOR),
D/O.SREEDHARAN, SISTER OF DECEASED MANIKANDA
SREELAL.(DOB 01.03.2003).
5 SREE NANDA,
AGED 13 YEARS,(MINOR),
D/O.SREEDHARAN, SISTER OF DECEASED MANIKANDA
SREELAL.(DOB 23.4.2007) (MINOR PETITIONERS 3,4,5 ARE
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN FATHER SREEDHARAN PETITIONER
NO.1 ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT MECHERI HOUSE,
IRINGATTIRI P.O., NILAMPUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT).
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
4
2025:KER:59109
BY ADV SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ALI ASKAR @ ALI ASHAR,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.USMAN, CHOLAKKAL (H), PALLIKUNNU P.O.,
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 583.
2 GOPALAKRISHNAN,
S/O.KRISHNAN, NILATHUMARIL (H), THENKARA P.O.,
MANNARKKAD, PIN-678 582.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
P.B.NO.12, D BLOCK, PAZHERY PLAZA, KODATHIPADI,
MANNARKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 582.
POLICY NO.1012053117P100498545. VALID FROM
31.05.2017 TO 30.05.2018.
BY ADV SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 05.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.292/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
5
2025:KER:59109
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV)
Nos.793 & 794 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ottapalam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award
dated 17/01/2020. The respondents in both the appeals are respondents
1 to 3 respectively in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the
documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.
2. In both the claim petitions, the claim petitioners are
the parents and siblings of the deceased persons. According to the
claim petitioners, on 08/08/2017, at about 09:15 a.m. while the
deceased in O.P.(MV) No.794/2017 was riding motorcycle bearing
registration no.KL-71/C-8910 with the deceased in O.P(MV)
No.793/2017, his friend, as pillion rider from Kodiyankunnu to MES
Kalladi College, Mannarkkad and when they reached in front of Venga
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
6
2025:KER:59109
health centre bus bearing registration no.KL-50/C-4362 driven by the
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked them down,
as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries to which they
succumbed. A sum of ₹20,00,000/- was claimed by the claim
petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.793/2017 and a sum of ₹7,00,000/- by the
claim petitioners in O.P(MV) No.794/2017 as compensation under
various heads.
3. The first respondent/driver and the second
respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte in both
the petitions.
4. The third respondent/insurer ; the additional 4th
respondent/the owner of the motorbike ridden by the deceased ; the
additional 5th respondent, the legal heir of the rider of the motor bike
and additional 6th respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed written
statement. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the rider of the bike. The 3rd respondent/insurer
admitted the policy.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced
by either side. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
7
2025:KER:59109
petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B1(b) were adduced
by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence
on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle
resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹7,34,000/-
in OP(MV) No.793/2017 and ₹1,84,500/- in OP(MV) No.794/2017
together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition
till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the
Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in these
appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal
calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
MACA No.292/2020
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioners that the deceased a 19 year old, was studying for B.Sc
Chemistry in MES Kalladi College, Mannarkkad. The deceased was a
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
8
2025:KER:59109
promising student. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal as
₹6,000/- per month is quite low even going by the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd,
(2011) 13 SCC 236 and hence needs to be appropriately enhanced.
8.1. The fact that the deceased was a B.Sc student is not
seen disputed. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra)
and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I find
that the notional income can be fixed at ₹12,000/- per month.
Loss of consortium
9. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the parents and
siblings of the deceased. Going by the dictums in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18
SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076: 2023 KHC
760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati, 2020 KHC
6530 : (2020) 9 SCC 644, the parents are entitled to an amount of
₹40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. No amount is seen
awarded for loss of consortium. However, an amount of ₹50,000/-
though under the wrong head of loss of love and affection is seen
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
9
2025:KER:59109
granted. As the claim petitioners are entitled to an amount of ₹80,000/-
they are entitled to the balance amount of ₹30,000/-.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1. Transport to ₹10,000/- ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/-
hospital (No Modification)
2. Damage to ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing and (No Modification)
articles
3. Medical ₹50,000/- -- --
expenses (No Modification)
4. Funeral ₹25,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
expenses (No Modification)
5. Compensation ₹30,000/- -- --
for pain and (No Modification)
suffering
6. Compensation ₹18,00,000/- ₹6,48,000/- ₹18,14,400/-
for loss of [(₹12,000/- +
dependency 40% of 12,000)
x12x18x1/2]
7. Compensation ₹50,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/-
for loss of estate (No modification)
8. Compensation ₹2,00,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹80,000/-
for loss of love
and affection (loss of filial
consortium to
claim petitioners
1 & 2)
Total ₹21,66,000/- ₹7,34,000/- ₹19,30,400/-
limited to
₹20,00,000/-
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
10
2025:KER:59109
MACA No.295 of 2020
11. The claim petitioners who are the legal heirs of the
deceased moved an application under Section 163A of the Act. The
Tribunal awarded a total amount of ₹1,84,500/- by fixing the annual
income of the deceased as ₹15,000/- based on the second schedule to
Section 163A. This according to the learned counsel for the claim
petitioners is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. In
support of the argument, he relies on the dictums in Kishan Gopal v.
Lala, 2013 KHC 4667 ; Master Jyothis Raj Krishna @ Jyothi
Krishna v. Sunny George, 2025 (1) KHC 348 ; Vinod v. Suresh
Kumar, 2023 KHC OnLine 191 ; Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali
v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 KHC 6703 and an unreported
decision of a Single Bench of this Court dated 02/02/2023 in MACA
No.2540 of 2009 (Dr.P.J.Mathew v. P.Pradeep). It was submitted
based on the aforesaid dictums that the annual income of the deceased
must be fixed at least at ₹30,000/-. Per contra, it was submitted by
the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the dictums in
Kishan Gopal (Supra) ; Dr.P.J.Mathew (Supra) ; Master Jyothis
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
11
2025:KER:59109
(Supra) are decisions rendered under Section 166 of the Act and
therefore the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as
the claim petition is filed under Section 163 A. The deceased in the
case on hand was 19 years old and not a minor. The decisions relied
on by the claim petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present
case as they deal with cases of minors. Going by the second schedule,
the notional income for computing compensation of people with no
income prior to the accident can only be ₹15,000/-. Therefore, there is
no infirmity committed by the Tribunal calling for an interference by
this Court, goes the argument.
12. As per the second schedule to Section 163A, the
annual income of the deceased is not to exceed ₹40,000/-. As per
paragraph 6 of the Schedule, the notional income for compensation
with no income prior to the accident is ₹15,000/-. The Apex Court in
Kurvan Ansari (Supra) dealt with a case of a boy aged 7 years who
died in an accident which occurred on 06/09/2004. The Tribunal based
on the second schedule to Section 163A fixed the annual income at
₹15,000/-. The Apex Court observed that despite repeated directions,
the second Schedule had not been amended even after the lapse of
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
12
2025:KER:59109
several years. Therefore, fixing notional income at ₹15,000/- per
annum for non earning members was held to be unjust and
unreasonable and so the notional income of the deceased in the said
case was fixed at ₹25,000/-.
13. In the light of the aforesaid dictum, the notional
income of the deceased can be fixed at ₹25,000/- per annum. Hence,
the amount towards loss of dependency would be ₹25,000/- x 18 x
2/3= ₹3,00,000/-.
14. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1. Transport to ₹10,000/- — —
hospital (No Modification)
2. Damage to ₹1,000/- -- --
clothing and (No Modification)
articles
3. Medical ₹5,000/- -- --
expenses (No Modification)
4. Funeral ₹25,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
expenses (No Modification)
5. Compensation ₹30,000/- -- --
for pain and (No Modification)
suffering
6. Compensation ₹18,00,000/- ₹1,80,000/- ₹3,00,000/-
for loss of (₹25,000/-
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
13
2025:KER:59109
dependency x18x2/3)
7. Compensation ₹50,000/- ₹2,500/- ₹2,500/-
for loss of (No modification)
estate
8. Compensation ₹2,00,000/- -- --
for loss of love (No Modification)
and affection
Total ₹21,66,000/- ₹1,84,500/- ₹3,04,500/-
limited to
₹20,00,000/-
In the result, MACA No.292/2020 is allowed by enhancing
the compensation by a further amount of ₹11,96,400/- (total
compensation = ₹19,30,400/-, that is, ₹7,34,000/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹11,96,400/- granted in appeal) and MACA No.295/2020
is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
₹1,20,000/- (total compensation = ₹3,04,500/- that is, ₹1,84,500/-
granted by the Tribunal + ₹1,20,000/- granted in appeal) with interest
at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of
realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is
directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a
period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to
the claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after
M.A.C.A.Nos.292 of 2020 & 295 of 2020
14
2025:KER:59109
making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
[ad_1]
Source link