COURT: MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR.
Presiding Officer: Sri.Ravichandar C R
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv Manumon A
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, has awarded ₹23,78,000 as compensation to the mother of Gokul Jayakumar, who died in a road accident. Sri. Ravichandran C.R., Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, passed the award on December 20, 2025 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2118/2019.
The Tribunal directed The New India Assurance Company Ltd. to deposit the amount with 7.5% interest per annum from September 16, 2019, the date of filing of the petition, until realisation. It also granted proportionate costs.
Background of the Claim
Bindu Jayakumar, aged 52, W/o Late Jayakumar, filed the petition under Sections 166(1) and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the legal representative of her deceased son, Gokul Jayakumar.
The respondents were Girish V., owner of the Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. KL-46-C-4176; Sreehari C.G., driver of the vehicle; and The New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer of the vehicle.
According to the petition, the accident occurred on December 12, 2016 at about 5:00 p.m. The deceased was travelling as a passenger in the Bolero along the Chennai–Thiruvananthapuram National Highway. Near Karmavu Pettai, Thiruvananthapuram, the driver allegedly lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle hit the left-side barricade and fell into a pit. As a result, Gokul Jayakumar was thrown out and sustained severe head injuries. He later succumbed to those injuries. The petitioner claimed ₹30,00,000 as compensation.
Defence and Insurer’s Stand
Respondents 1 and 2 denied negligence and contended that the claim amount was excessive. They stated that the vehicle had valid insurance coverage and that the driver possessed a valid driving licence.
The insurer admitted that the policy was valid at the time of the accident. However, it disputed the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. It also denied negligence and raised a plea of limitation, pointing out that the accident occurred on December 12, 2016 while the petition was filed on September 16, 2019.
Tribunal’s Findings on Negligence
The Tribunal framed issues on negligence, cause of death, entitlement to compensation, quantum, liability, and costs.
The petitioner produced Exhibits A1 to A14, including the FIR (Ext.A2), final report (Ext.A1), postmortem certificate (Ext.A6), AMVI report (Ext.A8), and family membership certificate (Ext.A13).
Ext.A2 FIR and Ext.A1 final report showed that Crime No. 864/2016 was registered at Tindivanam Police Station, Tamil Nadu. The police filed a charge sheet against the second respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC.
Relying on New India Assurance Company vs. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648], the Tribunal held that production of a charge sheet constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Based on the materials, the Tribunal concluded that rash and negligent driving by the second respondent caused the accident.
Cause of Death and Legal Representative
The Tribunal relied on Ext.A6 postmortem certificate along with Exts.A7 and A14 and found that Gokul Jayakumar died due to head injuries sustained in the accident.
Ext.A13 established that the petitioner was the mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that she was entitled to claim compensation as legal representative.
Assessment of Compensation
For quantifying compensation, the Tribunal applied the principles laid down in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2010) 2 KLT 802 (SC)] for selection of multiplier and deduction for personal expenses. It also relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662] for addition of future prospects.
The deceased was 21 years old at the time of the accident. Although the petitioner claimed that he was a dental student earning ₹10,000 per month, no sufficient documentary evidence was produced. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income at ₹15,000.
It added 40% towards future prospects and calculated the annual income at ₹2,52,000. After deducting one-half towards personal expenses and applying multiplier 18, the Tribunal assessed loss of dependency at ₹22,68,000.
In addition, the Tribunal awarded:
- ₹48,000 towards loss of consortium, relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130]
- ₹18,000 towards funeral expenses
- ₹18,000 towards loss of estate
- ₹15,000 towards pain and sufferings, following Jiny v. Raphael [ILR 2016 (2) Kerala 54]
- ₹10,000 towards transportation to hospital
- ₹1,000 towards damage to clothing
The Tribunal disallowed other claims due to lack of evidence. The total compensation was fixed at ₹23,78,000.
Liability and Directions
The Tribunal held that the second respondent, as driver, was primarily liable. The first respondent, as owner, was vicariously liable. Since the policy was valid and no breach was established, the insurer was directed to indemnify and satisfy the award.
The Tribunal directed the insurer to deposit ₹23,78,000 with 7.5% interest from September 16, 2019 until realisation, along with proportionate costs.
Further, the Tribunal directed compliance with Circular No. 1/2025 dated September 19, 2025 issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. It ordered payment through account payee cheque, production of bank payment advice, and issuance of Form 16A under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
With these directions, the Tribunal partly allowed O.P.(M.V.) No. 2118/2019 by award dated December 20, 2025.
APPEARANCE :
Adv. A. Manumon
Adv. Jolly Jose
Adv. V. K. Siju
Adv. Bineesh M. V.
Adv. Anju Lohithakshan
Adv. Praveen James
Adv. Niju P. S.
