Vasanthy vs Managing Director, Ksrtc, Fort, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3343 Ker

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945
                    MACA NO. 2711 OF 2012
AGAINST THE    JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1229/2007 DATED 13.09.2020
    OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

    1      VASANTHY
           W/O. LATE SATHYAPALAN, NALIYATTUTHURUTHIYIL
           HOSUE, KORATTY SOUTH.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT.
    2      PREETHA
           D/O. LATE SATHYAPALAN, DO-DO-
    3      PRAVEEN
           S/O. LATE SATHYAPALAN, DO-DO-
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.P.V.BABY
           SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, FORT, TRIVANDRUM
           KSRTC, FORT, TRIVANDRUM-695023.
    2      MURALI
           S/O. CHANDRAN PANACHIKKAL HOUSE,
           THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O., ALUVA-683101.
    3      LAKSHMIMUTY AMMA
           NALIYATTUTHURUTHIYIL HOSUE, KARUKUTTY.P.O.,
           ALUVA-683576.
           BY ADV ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.


THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

The appellants are the claimants in OP(MV) No.

1229/2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Irinjalakuda ('Tribunal' for short).

2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the

appellants seeking compensation for the unfortunate death of

Sathyapalan - who is the husband of the first among them

and father of 2 and 3 - caused on account of a road accident

on 27.06.2007, when he was walking on a public road, being

knocked down by the offending bus driven in a rash and

negligent manner. He was taken to a hospital, but succumbed

to the injuries; and the appellants thus sought an amount of

Rs.6,03,000/-, limited to Rs.3,00,000/- towards

compensation; but which has been allowed by the learned

Tribunal only to a sum of Rs.2,04,000/-. They thus assail the

compensation as being inadequate.

3. Sri.Joseph Gopuran - learned counsel appearing

for the appellants, vehemently argued that the primary

reason why the compensation is fixed low by the Tribunal is

because the notional income of the deceased has been taken

to be a mere Rs.2,000/-, though he had claimed that he was M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

a 'Manual Labourer', earning Rs.4,500/- per month. He then

added that 'Future Prospects' of 10% ought to have been

added to the income; but that instead of doing so, the learned

Tribunal went on to fix the compensation under the head

'Loss of Dependency' to a very small amount of

Rs.1,76,000/-. He then argued that, as per Minu Rout v.

Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra [(2013) 10 SCC 695], the

Honourable Supreme Court has settled the law that claim of

the appellants may not be accurate as regards income and

that the Court must take a pragmatic view, taking note of all

relevant circumstances. He thus prayed that the notional

income as postulated in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

[(2011) 13 SCC 236] be adopted in this case, along with

10% 'Future Prospects', required as per National Insurance

Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 6621].

4. Sri.Joseph Gopuran, thereafter, submitted that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads

'Funeral Expenses' and 'Loss of Estate', is inadequate

because, Pranay Sethi (supra), authorises an amount of

Rs.15,000/- under both these heads. He concluded his

submissions saying that the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

Tribunal under the head 'Loss of Consortium' is so exiguous,

that it defies logic because, against an amount of

Rs.1,20,000/-, which is sanctioned under Pranay Sethi

(supra), only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. He thus prayed

that this appeal be allowed.

5. Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian - learned Standing

Counsel for the first respondent - KSRTC, in response,

submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

without error; and thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

6. I have considered the afore submissions and have

also gone through the evidence on record - copies of which

have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel

for the parties, with the express consent that it can be acted

upon by this Court without dispute.

7. On the adequacy of the notional income adopted

by the Tribunal in favour of the deceased, I have no doubt

that the figure claimed by the appellants is deserving to be

reckoned. I say so because, in Ramachandrappa (supra),

the notional income to be adopted for a person with

unascertainable income, or who was a 'Coolie', in the year

2007 - when the accident occurred - is a minimum of

Rs.6,000/-. Even though the appellants had claimed only M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

Rs.4,500/- as the income of the deceased, the ratio in Minu

Rout (supra) would come to play, because the Honourable

Supreme Court has held therein that, when the breadwinner

dies, his legal heirs or dependents may not be in a position to

discern his actual income; and therefore, that Courts must

take a realistic and robust view. I am, therefore of the firm

view that, though the appellants have only Rs.4,500/- as the

income of the deceased, an amount of Rs.6,000/- becomes

eligible as per Ramachandrappa (supra). No doubt, to

this, 10% will have to be added as 'Future Prospects'

because, the deceased was only 52 years of age at the time

of the accident and his unfortunate death, as per Pranay

Sethi (supra).

8. The notional income being so found, the question

now is what percentile of the same will have to be reduced

towards Personal Expenses of the deceased. The appellants

are the wife and two children of the deceased; and they

assert that all of them were depended upon him financially,

since the children were not married at the time of the

accident. When these assertions remain uncontroverted by

the KSRTC, merely because the daughter was 28 years and

the son was 26 years, at the time of accident, it would not M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

automatically lead to an inference that they were not

financially depended upon him. I, therefore, confirm the

finding of the Tribunal that only one-third of the income can

be reduced as personal expenses of the deceased.

9. Further, the appellants are also right in saying that

they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each under the heads

'Funeral Expenses' and 'Loss of Estate'; and to a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/- under the head 'Loss of Consortium', since

Pranay Sethi (supra) sanctions the same also.

10. That said, however, the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the head 'Pain and Suffering' will require to

be deleted because, in United India Insurance Co.Ltd v.

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [2020(3) KHC 760],

the Honourable Supreme Court has said that the

compensation under this head will have to be subsumed in

the compensation under the head 'Loss of Dependency'.

In the afore circumstances, this appeal is allowed in the

following manner:

a. The compensation under the head 'Loss of Dependency'

is enhanced to Rs.5,80,800/-, reckoning the notional

income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month,

with 10% Future Prospects added to it and an amount M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

equal to one third of it being reduced as his personal

expenses.

b. The compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses' is

enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.2,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal, as per Pranay Sethi (supra).

c. The compensation under the head 'Loss of Estate' is

enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal, as per Pranay Sethi (supra).

d. The compensation under the head ''Loss of Consortium'

is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal as per Pranay Sethi (supra).

e. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

head 'Pain and Suffering', is deleted.

In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal will remain unaltered.

Consequently, the appellants will be at full liberty to

recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from

the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of

7.5% (reducing the rate of interest of 9% granted by the

Tribunal, in view of the escalation granted by this Court), from

the date of claim until it is recovered. They will also be

entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012

ordered by the Tribunal.

In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be

deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned

Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lsn