Kerala High Court
Litty Pious vs The Kerala State Road Transport ... on 20 January, 2021
MACA.No.904 OF 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
MACA.No.904 OF 2004
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 814/1998 DATED 31-08-2002 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS:
1 LITTY PIOUS, W/O.PIOUS VARGHESE,
MANGALY HOUSE, VATHAKKATTU,
THURAVOOR, ANGAMALY. (DIED)
ADDL. 2 PIOUS VARGHESE,
AGED 40 YEARS,
MANGALY HOUSE,
VATHAKKAD, THURAVOOR.
ADDL. 3 MIDHUN, S/O.PIOUS VARGHESE,
AGED 12 YEARS
S/O.PIOUS VARGHESE,
MANGALY HOUSE,
VATHAKKAD, THURAVOOR
ADDL 4 SUBIN,
AGED 14 YEARS
S/O PIOUS VARGHESE,
MANGALY HOUSE,
VATHAKKAD, THURAVOOR
ADDL 5 ANN PIOUS
AGED 4½ YEARS
D/O PIOUS VARGHESE,
MANGALAY HOUSE,
VATHAKKAD, THURAVOOR
(LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED ORIGINAL APPELLANT
MACA.No.904 OF 2004 2
IMPLEADED AS ADDL APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 AS PER ORDER
DATED 02.03.2020 IN IA-5/2004 IN MACA-904/2004)
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL
SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
SMT.RESHMI JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
2 ANTU,
S/O. DEVASSY,
NEELAMGAVIL HOUSE, THOLOOR VILLAGE,
PARAPPUR KARAYIL, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPN.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N. SC. KSRTC
R1 BY SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.904 OF 2004 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January 2021
The deceased 1st appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV)
No.814/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Perumbavoor. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents
in the claim petition. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1 st
appellant died. Consequently, the additional appellants 2 to 5, the
legal representatives of the deceased 1 st appellant, were impleaded
as per order dated 2.3.2020 in I.A No.5/2004. The parties are, for
the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in
the claim petition.
2. The petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on
account of the injuries that she sustained in an accident that
occurred on 19.9.1997.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief in the claim petition
was that, on 19.9.1997, while she was travelling in a Car bearing
Reg. No.KBF-6812 through Angamaly-Kalady M.C.Road, a bus
bearing Registration No.KL-15-2283 owned by the 1 st respondent
and driven by the 2 nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner
at very high speed, hit the car. The petitioner sustained injuries
and was hospitalised as in inpatient from 19.9.1997 to 29.9.1997
at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. The petitioner
claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,02,500/- under the various
heads.
4. The 1st respondent contested the claim petition. They
filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the amounts
claimed by the petitioner was excessive and exorbitant. Hence,
they sought for the claim petition to be dismissed.
5. The claim petition was tried along with connected
cases ie., O.P(MV) Nos.181, 182, 199, 813 and 814 of 1998. The
petitioner was examined as PW1 and the other witnesses were
examined as PW2 to PW6. Exts.A1 to A42 were marked through
them in evidence.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and
materials on record by the impugned award allowed the claim
petition, in part, by directing the 1 st respondent to pay the
petitioner an amount of Rs.79,200/-.
7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent.
9. The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
10. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi
[(2017)16 SCC 680] has held that Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and
the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards.
The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through
the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the
principle of equitability.
11. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was aged
34 years on the date of accident ie., on 19.9.1997. She was
treated as an inpatient for a period of ten days as discernible
from Ext.A5 and A6 documents. It is also on record that she had
incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.14,294/- as per
Ext.A8 series documents.
12. The Tribunal after seeing the petitioner, while she has
been examined as PW1, assessed her disability as 10%. Taking
into the consideration that the petitioner was treated as an
inpatient, the Tribunal fixed the petitioner's loss of earning for a
period of three months. The Tribunal also fixed the income of
the petitioner, as claimed by her, at Rs.6,500/-. However, the
Tribunal adopted the multiplier as 17, which is against the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra).
13. The correct multiplier as per the law laid down in
Pranay Sethi (supra) is 16. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is aged 34 years and the multiplier is 16, the petitioner
is entitled for future prospects at 40%.
14. On an re-appreciation of pleadings and materials on
record, and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, I am of the considered opinion going by the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and others
(Civil Appeal No.2567 of 2020) and United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwindr Kaur and others
[2020(3) KHC 760 (SC)], the petitioner is entitled for the loss
due to disability with future prospects at 40%. Accordingly, I
enhance the compensation under the said head of claim from
Rs.24,356/- to Rs.40,320/-, i.e., by a further amount of
Rs.15,964/-.
Other heads of claim
15. With respect to the other heads of claim, namely, loss
of earning, transportation, damage to clothing, bystander
expenses, medical expenses, pain and sufferings, I find that the
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation.
16. Therefore, on an overall appreciation of the pleadings,
materials on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court in the aforecited decisions, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated
above and given in the table below for easy reference.
Sl. Heads of claim Amount awarded by Amounts
No the Tribunal (in modified and
rupees) recalculated
by this Court
1 Loss of earning 4500 4500
4 Bystander's expenses 18000 18000
5 Medical expenses 16244 16244
6 Pain and sufferings 15000 15000
7 Loss due to disability 24356 40320
79200 95164
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of Rs.15,964/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand nine hundred and sixty four only) with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition
till the date of realisation with proportionate cost. The 1 st
respondent shall deposit the additional compensation awarded in
this appeal with interest and the proportionate costs by
depositing the said amount before the Tribunal, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the petitioner
towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The Tribunal
shall disburse the additional compensation to the petitioner, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
ab JUDGE
