Philipose vs The Tamilnadu State Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9894 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                         MACA.No.959 OF 2008

      AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 757/2003 DATED 28-06-2006 OF
   ADDITIONAL .DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
                           ,THODUPUZHA


APPELLANT:

               PHILIPOSE
               S/O KURIAN
               PUTHENPURAYIL(PUTHENPURACKAL) HOUSE,
               CUMBUMETTU POST, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
               SRI.AJEESH K.SASI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPN.
               MADURAI DIVISION, BYE PASS ROAD,
               DIINDIGAL-624004, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

      2        SWAMY.M.P. SO.MOKKIAH CAUVERY STREET
               W-1414/11, HANUMANTHANPATTAY,
               UTHAMAPALAYAM-625533, TAMIL NADU. ( DELETED)



               RESPONDENT NO. 2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY OF
               THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER THE ORDER DATED
               17/03/2021 IN I.A.NO. 1/2021 IN MACA 959/2008.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC

OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC FOR R1

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-03-2021, THE COURT ON 24-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.959 OF 2008

                                  2




                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
             ===================
                 MACA No.959 OF 2008
             ===================
         Dated this the 24th day of March 2021


                        JUDGMENT

Appellants are the petitioners in O.P (MV)

No.757/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Thodupuzha. It was a claim petition filed under

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter

the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank

before the Tribunal).

2. The short facts are like this:_

Petitioners are the parents of one Sajimon, aged

27 years died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on

02.06.2003. Sajimon was pushing a cycle along the left

side of Cumbum - Goodalloor road with battery on its

carrier in north south direction and a bus bearing MACA.No.959 OF 2008

Registration No. TN 57N/0917 coming from the back side

in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased and

thereby he fell on the road and sustained serious injuries.

He succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners,

the deceased was a lorry driver and he was getting a

monthly income of Rs.3,250/- as on the date of accident.

Hence, they claim compensation.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts. A1 to A8 were

marked on the side of the petitioners. PW1 and PW2 were

the witnesses examined on the side of petitioners. After

going through the evidence and documents, the tribunal

found that, the petitioners are entitled an amount of

Rs.1,84,500/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the

date of application till realization. Aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation this appeal is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent.

5. The short point raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioners is that, the tribunal after assessing the MACA.No.959 OF 2008

annual income, reduced 2/3 towards contribution to the

family instead of 1/3. The learned Standing Counsel for 1 st

respondent also conceded that, the tribunal ought to have

reduced only 1/3.

6. The learned counsel submitted that, the tribunal

fixed the monthly income as Rs.2,500/-. According to the

counsel, the monthly income of the deceased claimed by

the petitioners is Rs.3,250/-. According to the petitioners,

the deceased was a driver by profession. The learned

Standing Counsel for 1st respondent submitted that, no

evidence is produced by the petitioners to substantiate the

same. But the fact remains that, the claim of the

petitioners is only Rs.3,250/-. Even a coolie will get more

than that amount during the period of 2003, if the

principle laid down by the Apex Court, in

Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram

[2011(13) SCC 236], is taken as a basis. Therefore, this

Court can safely fix the monthly income of the deceased

as Rs.3,250/- instead of Rs.2,500/-. Then the MACA.No.959 OF 2008

compensation for dependency is to be re assessed in the

following manner.

Rs.3,250 X 12 X 18 X 2/3= Rs. 4,68,000/-

7. An amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- is granted by the

tribunal and that is to be substituted.

8. The appellants are entitled interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of application till realisation.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The

impugned award is modified to the effect that the

appellants are entitled an enhanced amount of

Rs.4,68,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of

application till realisation towards dependency

compensation instead of Rs.1,80,000/-.

(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU