THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs DEVAKI

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 4 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1948
MACA NO. 349 OF 2020
OPMV NO.69 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
KOLLAM-691001, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 DEVAKI
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O. MADHAVAN, KAITHARAYIL, KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690516.
2 PANKAJAKSHNI
AGED 65 YEARS
D/O. KOCHUKUNJU, MOOSAKUTTY PADETTATHIL, CHERAVALLY
MURI/P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690502.
3 CHELLAMMA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. RAGHAVAN, PALAKKOTTU VADAKKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM
P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690533.
4 SARADA
AGED 54 YEARS

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..2..
D/O. KOCHUKUNJU, MOOSAKUTTY PADEETTATHIL, CHERAVALLY
MURI/P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690502.
5 UNNI
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KOCHUKUNJU, MOOSAKUTTY PADEETTATHIL, CHERAVALLY
MURI/P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690502.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SRI.ARUN BOSE
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 21.05.2026, THE COURT ON 04.06.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..3..
“CR”

JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurance company
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants in
OP(MV) No.69 of 2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Mavelikara. The claim petition was filed by the siblings of the
deceased, Ms. Santhamma, who lost her life in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 04.10.2014, seeking compensation on account of the
death of their sister. The respondents herein were the claimants before
the tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as they are arrayed before the tribunal.
3. The case of the claimants was that on 04.10.2014,
while the deceased was crossing the road through zebra line at
Krishnapuram junction along the Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway, a
scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-29G/6584 ridden by the first respondent in a
rash and negligent manner, hit her, whereby she sustained fatal injuries
and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of
the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..4..
5,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the driver and the owner of
₹
the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the
tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement,
admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing
the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined
and Exts.A1 to A20 & X1 were marked on the side of the claimants. The
tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held
that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of 6,89,400/- as
₹
compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being
the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12%
per annum was also awarded. The respondent insurer has come up in
appeal, challenging notional monthly income fixed by the tribunal as
well as the compensation awarded to the claimants towards loss of
dependency.
4. I have heard Smt.Preethy R. Nair, the learned Standing
Counsel for the insurer; and Sri.Arun Bose, the learned counsel for the
claimants.
5. The main issue for consideration in this appeal is

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..5..
whether the awarding of compensation to the claimants, who are the
siblings of the deceased, under the head of loss of dependency is correct
or not. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, the
claimants, being major siblings of the deceased and residing separately
with their respective families, were not dependent on the deceased and,
therefore, are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. Though a specific contention that the claimants, being the
siblings, are not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency was
raised by the insurer before the tribunal, relying on the evidence of PW1
(second claimant), the tribunal considered the claimants as dependents
and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. To substantiate
the arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of
the apex court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Anand
Pal & Others [2023 KHC 7268]. It was also the argument of the
learned Standing Counsel that since the monthly pension of the
deceased was only 6,285/-, the tribunal ought not have fixed the
₹
notional monthly income at 7,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel
₹
further argued that, since the deceased was a spinster, one-half of her
income ought to have been deducted towards personal and living
expenses. However, the tribunal deducted only one-third of the income,
which, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is unsustainable.

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..6..
6. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other
hand, argued that though the claimants were major siblings, since the
deceased was unmarried, all the claimants were dependent on her and
that the deceased was a pensioner and used to support the claimants
being her siblings. It was further argued that if this Court finds that the
claimants are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of
dependency, they being the siblings of the deceased would be entitled to
compensation towards loss of estate as they inherit the estate of the
deceased. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel relied
on the judgment of this Court in Elamma v. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance, Mumbai [2023 KHC OnLine 9728]. The learned counsel for
the claimants further argued that even as per the judgment in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident that
occurred in 2014, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at 9,500/- and
₹
sought for a refixation of the notional income at 9,500/-.
₹
7. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both
sides. It is an admitted fact that the claimants were all major siblings of
the deceased. It is also admitted that the deceased was a spinster as
well as a pensioner. As per Ext.A18 Treasury Passbook, the income of
the deceased Santhamma is 6,285/-; however, the tribunal, on its
₹

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..7..
discretion, fixed the monthly income at 7,000/-. In the absence of any
₹
other document, Ext.A18 has to be relied upon to prove the income of
the deceased; and since as per Ext.A18 Treasury Passbook, the income
is 6,285/-, the tribunal ought to have taken only 6,285/- as the income
₹ ₹
of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the claimants argued
for a refixation of the notional income at 9,500/- relying on the
₹
judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), the income fixed in
Ramachandrappa (supra) cannot be applied in this case since the
deceased was a pensioner. Moreover, there is no case for the claimants
that the deceased was having any income other than pension and no
appeal has been filed challenging the fixation of the income. Therefore,
the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer has to be accepted
and thus I am inclined to refix the notional income of the deceased at
6,285/-.
₹
8. As regards the compensation towards loss of
dependency, all the claimants were major siblings of the deceased. In
order to prove dependency, evidence was adduced by PW1, who is the
second claimant as well as one of the sisters of the deceased. She had
deposed that she is also a spinster and was dependent on the deceased
for her day-to-day living expenses. In the affidavit, PW1 stated as
follows:

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..8..
“2- , ,
ആ  ഹർജക
രയ
യ ഞ
ൻ അവവ
ഹതയ ട  ശ
നമയടട സരകണതല
,
ട യ
ട ആശയച ജ വ ച വനരനത കട
ടത മറ' ഹര'ജക
ര'( നല സഹ
യങൾ ട-യ
. ,
വന രനതമ
കന ട യ
ളടട മരണ മല എട5 ഏക ആശയ തടന ഇല
ത
യടളത
, ,
എന ( മറ' ഹര'ജ ക
ര'( ത ര
വവദനയ വലത
യ കഷനഷങൾ( ഇട വനടളത
7,000/- .”
ശ
നമയ' പതമ
സ രപ വരമ
നമണ
യരനതമ
കന
During cross-examination [Though it is noted by the tribunal as “Cross
Examination (R2)”, it is seen from the impugned award that respondents
1 and 2 were ex parte. Hence, it has to be presumed that the tribunal
mistakenly noted as “R2” instead of “R3”], PW1 stated as follows:
“Cross Examination (R2)
(Q). . (Q). Moosakutti
എവ ടട ത
മസ ക
യക ട-ര
വ' വ ടവപര'
Paditathil. Adhar Card ? . (Q). .
ഹ
ജര
ക
വമ
ഹ
ജര
ക
 വ വ
ഹതയ
വണ
അല
. (Q). .
മര ച ശ
നമ സവഹ
ദര ശ
നമയടട അചന അമയ ജ വചരപവണ
ഇല ശ
നമ
(Q). . (Q). .
വ വ
ഹതയ
യരവന
അല ശ
നമ എവടട ത
മസ എൻ്'ടI കടട ആയ രന
Cheravu. .
എന ക' വജ
ലയല ഹർജ ക
ർ എല
വര പവതJക പവതJക കടബമ
യ
(Q). . (Q).
ത
മസ(ന എന' എതകക പIയന ശര യ
ണ' അപകട  കണ
യരവന

. (Q). . - Treat (Q). Alappuzha
അI യല ശ
നമ എന മരച അI യല എവ ടട ട-യ
Vandanam- . Hospital- .
ത
യരന മരണ സമയത' ൽ ഞ
ൻ ഇല
യരന ഹർജ ക
ർ
. . ” .
ശ
നമടയ ആശയചല ജ വചത' ശര യല ശ
നമടയ ആശയച' നമടല
 ജ വച
9. Hence, during evidence, the second claimant had
stated that her life was completely dependent on the deceased. In the
cross-examination, she stated that everyone was dependent on the
deceased. However, only the second claimant has given evidence before
the tribunal and the other claimants did not mount the box. During
cross-examination, PW1 has also stated that all the other claimants are
living separately with their respective families. All of them are majors.
Unless proper evidence is adduced to establish that the other claimants

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..9..
were dependent on the deceased, they cannot be treated as dependents
and, consequently, are not entitled to compensation under the head of
loss of dependency. However, insofar as the second claimant is
concerned, the evidence on record establishes that she, being a
spinster, was residing with the deceased and was wholly dependent on
her. Therefore, the second claimant is entitled to be treated as a
dependent of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the second claimant is
entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency. Since it is found
that the second claimant was a dependent of the deceased, the question
regarding compensation under the head of loss of estate to the other
siblings also does not arise.
10. As the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at
6,285/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be
₹
recalculated. The deceased was 57 years old at the time of the accident.
Hence, for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency, 10%
future prospects has to be added to the refixed income as per the
judgment of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)]. Thus, after adding 10% future prospects,
the notional income would be 6,913.5/- (6285 + 628.5) for the purpose
₹
of calculating loss of dependency. It is seen that while assessing
compensation for loss of dependency, the tribunal deducted only one-

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..10..
third of the income towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased. However, the deceased being a spinster, as per the judgment
in Pranay Sethi (supra), the income to be deducted towards personal
and living expenses is one-half and not one-third. Since the deceased
was 57 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier to be adopted is
“9” as per the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)].
11. Thus, when recalculating loss of dependency applying
the above standards and following the judgments in Pranay Sethi
(supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the second claimant will be entitled
to get only a total compensation of 3,73,329/- (6913.5 x 12 x 9 x 1/2)
₹
towards loss of dependency, whereas the tribunal awarded 5,54,400/-.
₹
Hence, there will be a reduction for an amount of 1,81,071/- under the
₹
head of loss of dependency .
12. Since the insurer has not raised any other specific
ground assailing the quantum of the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under other heads, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
13. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the
tribunal awarded penal interest at the rate of 12%, which is not legally
sustainable in view of the judgment of the apex court in National

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..11..
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur [2004 (2) SCC 370].
Accordingly, the direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @
12% per annum is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award is modified as follows:
a) The claimants will only be entitled to get a total compensation of
5,08,329/- (Rupees five lakh eight thousand three hundred and
₹
twenty nine only), with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of
petition till realization and proportionate costs.
b) The second claimant alone shall be entitled to the compensation
amount awarded towards loss of dependency with interest
thereon. It is made clear that all the claimants including the
second claimant will be entitled to get the balance compensation
amount.
c) The direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 12% per
annum is hereby set aside.
d) The insurer shall deposit the total compensation together with
interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimants shall
furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details

2026:KER:38133
MACA No.349/2020
..12..
before the insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the
insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case
of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the
insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal.
Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be
disbursed to the claimants at the earliest in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-