MARIYAKUTTY vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Court
Kerala High Court
Decided on
02-03-2026

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
1
2026:KER:16880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
ND
MONDAY, THE 2 DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1947
MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.01.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.886 OF 2016 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 MARIYAKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O ABDUL RAZAK
2 LABEEB A.K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAZAK
3 MUHAMED SAHEER (MINOR)
AGED 16 YEARS, DOB 22/01/98
4 KADEEJA SHERIN (MINOR)
AGED 11 YEARS, D.O.B.06-12-2003 MINORS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN MARIYAKUTTY, ALL
RESIDING AT AMIYAPOYIL HOUSE, ADAVALAKANDY,
PALAKUTTY, POST KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE
BY ADV SHRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDNET :-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
KMO TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE- 673 001
BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.02.2026, THE COURT ON 02.03.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
2
2026:KER:16880
“CR”
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P
(MV) No.886 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was
the third respondent before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 28.10.2014 at about 09.00
am, while the deceased was riding the scooter bearing reg. No. KL-
57-G-7271, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-18-E-3871
nd
ridden by the 2 respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on
the scooter in which the deceased was riding. As a result of the
accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and later
succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, being
the mother and siblings of the deceased, approached the tribunal
claiming compensation.
3. The first and second respondents/owner and rider of the
offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement admitting

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
3
2026:KER:16880
nd
the accident but denying the negligence attributed against the 2
respondent and stated that the accident occurred due to the
nd
negligence of the deceased. It was further contended that the 2
respondent was having a valid driving licence and the offending
rd rd
vehicle was insured with the 3 respondent. The 3
respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity
of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It
was further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased
was not wearing a helmet. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were
marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials
on record, awarded a sum of 12,94,360/- as compensation under ₹
different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of
rd
petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3
respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the
claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in
appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
learned standing counsel for the respondent/insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant claims

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
4
2026:KER:16880
enhancement mainly under the following heads :
Notional income:- The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that though an amount of 20,000/- was claimed as the ₹
income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken only ₹ 5,000/- as
notional income, who was an electrician cum plumber by
profession. It is further submitted that, going by the judgment in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the income of a Coolie,
for an accident in 2014, is fixed as ₹ 9,500/- and sought for
enhancement of income. In order to award just and reasonable
compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa
(supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income at 9,500/-. ₹
Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the
deceased is refixed at ₹ 9,500/-, compensation towards loss of
dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 21 years old
at the time of the accident and as per the judgment in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 40%
future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after
adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the
amount would be arrived at ₹ 13,300/- (9,500 + 3,800) for

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
5
2026:KER:16880
calculating dependency. Accordingly, following the judgments in
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled
to get a total compensation of 14,36,400/- (13,300 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) ₹
towards loss of dependency. Since the tribunal has awarded an
amount of 8,10,000/- ₹ towards loss of dependency, there will be an
additional amount of ₹ 6,26,400/- under this head.
Funeral expenses, Loss of estate and Pain and sufferings
:- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has
awarded an amount of 25,000/- each towards funeral expenses ₹
and loss of estate and no amount was awarded under the head pain
and sufferings. Going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the
compensation under the conventional heads ought to have been
fixed at 15,000/- each. Hence, I find that ₹ the additional amount of
₹ 20,000/- awarded under both the conventional heads can be
adjusted towards the head of pain and sufferings. Thus, the heads
get adjusted to each other.
Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection :- The
learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company
submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of 4,00,000/- ₹

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
6
2026:KER:16880
towards loss of love and affection, whereas only the 1st claimant,
being the mother of the deceased, was entitled to compensation
under the head of loss of consortium. It was further contended that
the other three claimants, being the siblings of the deceased, were
not entitled to any compensation under the head, loss of love and
affection. In support of the contention, the learned standing
counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
V.Pathmavathi and others v. Bharathi Axa General Insurance
Company Ltd and others [Manu/SC/0130/2026].
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant
submitted that no appeal has been filed by the insurance company
challenging compensation awarded by the tribunal. It is further
submitted that the siblings are entitled for compensation under the
head loss of love and affection. He relied on the judgment of this
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Palakkad v. Sindhu K
[2025 KHC 125], Indira Gangadharan and others v. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others [MACA
No.81 of 2020], judgment of Apex Court in Radha Thevannoor v.
M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd [2025 KHC 7675] and the
judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh in Raj Singh v. Dilip

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
7
2026:KER:16880
Ram [2025 KHC 3780] and argued that the siblings are also
entitled for compensation under the head loss of love and affection.
Now this court is called upon to decide whether siblings are
entitled for compensation under the head loss of love and affection.
It is true that no appeal is filed by the insurance company
challenging the award passed by the tribunal. This court is also
aware of the settled position that there shall not be any reduction
of total compensation awarded, in a claimant’s appeal. The
constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has
recognized only three conventional heads under which
compensation can be awarded in a death case viz loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses. However, in Magma
General Insurance Co . Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
[(2018) 18 SCC 130], the Apex Court gave a comprehensive
interpretation to the concept of consortium to include spousal
consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. In Magma
General Insurance (supra) , it was held that loss of love and
affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be
awarded as a separate head of compensation. Admittedly, loss of
consortium is classified into three categories, namely, spousal

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
8
2026:KER:16880
consortium, parental consortium, and filial consortium. For the
death of a husband or wife, the surviving spouse is entitled to
spousal consortium. In the case of death of a parent, the
children/legal heirs are entitled to parental consortium. In the
event of the death of a child, the parents are entitled to filial
consortium.
In Magma General Insurance (supra) , it is held that loss of
love and affection is comprehensive to loss of consortium. Further
in V.Pathmavathi (supra), the Apex Court has considered in detail
the compensation payable under the head loss of consortium and
loss of love and affection. That was a case filed by the widow of the
victim, their two minor children and the victim's parents. In the
afore case, there was no issue regarding compensation to be paid
towards siblings. However, the Apex Court in V.Pathmavathi
(supra) has held that it is bound by the law declared by the
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) which does not
recognize loss of love and affection as a distinct head of
compensation. It was further held that no separate award under the
head of loss of love and affection is warranted.
The judgments relied on by the appellant are distinguishable

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
9
2026:KER:16880
on facts and do not apply to the present case. In Sindhu K (supra)
and Raj Singh (supra) , the claim petition was filed by the sole
legal heir who was the sibling. However, the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in Radha Thevannoor (supra) is not applicable in
this case. The judgment rendered by this court in MACA No.81 of
2020 cannot be applied on the basis of the judgment in
V.Pathmavathi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance (supra) . Thus following the judgment in
V.Pathmavathi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance (supra), I find that the siblings are not entitled
for any compensation under the head loss of love and affection. In
the present case, the tribunal has awarded an amount of
₹ 4,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection . I find that the
st
1 claimant alone is entitled for an amount of 40,000/- ₹ towards
loss of consortium. Hence, there will be a deduction of
₹ 3,60,000/- under the afore head.
6. On a perusal of the award and records available, I am not
inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal
under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable.
7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
10
2026:KER:16880
follows:
Sl.
Head of Claim Amount
No
claimed
Amount
awarded by
the tribunal
Modified in
Total
compensation
appeal
1. Transport to hospital 2,00 5,000 (not modified) 5,000
2. Medical expenses 6,000 28,560 (not modified 28,560
3. Hospitalization for 1
day
Nil 800 (not modified 800
4 Funeral expenses 50,000 25,000
15,000
-
5. Loss of estate Nil 25,000 15,000
6. Pain and sufferings - - 20,000
7. Love and affection 2,00,000 4,00,000 3,60,000(-) 40,000
8. Loss of dependency 15,00,000 8,10,000 6,26,400 14,36,400
TOTAL 17,56,200 12,94,360 2,66,400 15,60,760
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the
appellants/claimants are awarded an additional amount of
₹ 2,66,400/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty six thousand four hundred
only) over and above the amount awarded by the tribunal with
interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization
and proportionate costs against the respondent being the insurer.
The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with

MACA NO. 1915 OF 2016 ‘CR’
11
2026:KER:16880
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, ADHAAR Card and bank details
before the respondent 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 appellants at the earliest in accordance with law.
The ratio adopted by the tribunal has to follow as regards the
enhanced compensation also.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SMA