Kerala State Road Transport ... vs Mrs.Tintu
2023 Latest Caselaw 3375 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
   FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945

                    MACA NO. 2452 OF 2017

    OPMV 1029/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                          MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.T.P.SAJAN
          SRI.DEEPU THANKAN

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT:

    1     MRS.TINTU, W/O.LATE SUNUMON, KOLASSERYKUNNEL HOUSE,
          HOUSE NO.258/12, EDAVETTY, MUTHALAKODAM P.O.,
          MUTHALAKODAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, KERALA,
          INDIA - 685 605.

    2     ALEN SUNU, S/O.LATE SUNUMON, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
          GUARDIAN, TINTU, RESIDING AT KOLASSERYKUNNEL HOUSE,
          HOUSE NO.258/2, EDAVETTY, MUTHALAKODAM P.O.,
          MUTHALAKODAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, KERALA,
          INDIA - 685 605.

    3     ALWIN SUNU, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER TINTU,
          RESIDING AT KOLASSERYKUNNEL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.258/2,
          EDAVETTY, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., MUTHALAKODAM VILLAGE,
          THODUPUZHA TALUK, KERALA, INDIA - 685 605.

    4     R.KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.C.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT
          KURIYIPPILLIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, THRIKALATHOOR
          DESOM, SIVANKUNNU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.

          BY ADV SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA 2452 of 2017                 2




                             JUDGMENT

The 1st respondent/owner in OP(MV) No.1029 of 2014 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, is the

appellant herein, challenging the award, as it is excessive in nature.

The claimants and driver are the respondents herein.

2. The claimants are the wife and children of deceased

Sunumon, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on

22.05.2011. While Sri.Sunumon was driving a motorcycle, he was

knocked down by KL-15/4012 KSRTC bus driven by the 4th

respondent (the 2nd respondent in OP(MV)No.1029 of 2014), and he

succumbed to the injuries. He was a 32 year old man working in a

construction company earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The

legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of

Rs.30,00,000/-, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,69,000/- with

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realisation. The appellant/1st respondent was directed to deposit the

amount within five months from the date of award, failing which, he

was made liable to pay interest @ 11% per annum. The

appellant/owner of the KSRTC bus filed the above appeal alleging

that the compensation awarded is excessive in nature, and the

direction to pay interest @ 11% per annum in case of default to

make the deposit within five months from the date of award, is

improper.

3. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced from

either side. Exts A1 to A8 were marked.

4. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in

the impugned award as claimed by the appellant.

5. Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri.Deepu Thankan

appearing for the appellant and learned counsel Sri.Saji Varghese

Kakkattumattathil appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

7. According to the appellant, learned Tribunal added 50%

towards future prospects of the deceased, though he was not

having any permanent job or fixed salary. The Tribunal fixed the

monthly income of deceased @ Rs.12,000/-. As per the decision

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others,

[(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40% addition towards future prospects was

liable to be allowed in case of an employee aged below 40 years

having no permanent job or fixed income. But learned Tribunal

added 50% towards future prospects and that is not correct. When

40% addition is given towards future prospects, his monthly income

can be fixed @ 16,800/- (12,000 + 40%). Since he was having

three dependents, ⅓ has to be deducted towards his personal

expenses. So his monthly income would become Rs.11,200/-.

Multiplier applicable was 16 as he was aged 32 years. So the loss

of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.21,50,400/-

(11,200X12X16). The Tribunal awarded Rs.23,04,000/- towards

loss of dependency. So, Rs.1,53,600/- (23,04,000-21,50,400) is in

excess and that amount is liable to be deducted from the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

8. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.25,000/-. As per Pranay Sethi's case cited (Supra), the eligible

amount was only Rs.15,000/-. So, Rs.10,000/- is in excess, and

that is also liable to be deducted.

9. Under the head 'pain and suffering', learned Tribunal

awarded Rs.25,000/-. Since Sri.Sunumon died on the date of the

accident itself and being a personal injury claim, the legal heirs

were not eligible to get compensation for pain an suffering suffered

by the victim as per the decision Oriental Insurance Company

Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (Deceased)

Through His Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan

and Another [2021 SCC Online SC 691]. So, that amount also is

liable to be deducted.

10. Under the head 'loss of estate', learned Tribunal awarded

only Rs.5,000/-. As per Pranay Sethi's case cited (Supra), the

eligible amount was Rs.15,000/-. So, the respondents 1 to 3

(claimants) are entitled to get an addition of Rs.10,000/- under the

head 'loss of estate'.

11. Under the head 'loss of consortium' and 'loss of love and

affection', learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each amounting

to Rs.2,00,000/- in total. As per Pranay Sethi's case cited (Supra),

wife and children of the deceased were eligible to get Rs.40,000/-

each under the head 'loss of consortium', amounting to

Rs.1,20,000/- in total. So, Rs.80,000/- is in excess of the eligible

amount, and that amount is liable to be deducted from the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems

to be just and reasonable, and it needs no interference.

Head of claim Amount Amount Amounts Difference to awarded by awarded in deducted in be drawn as the Tribunal appeal appeal enhanced compensation

Loss of dependency Rs.23,04,000/- Rs.21,50,400/- Rs.1,53,600/- ....

Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- expenses

Pain and Rs.25,000/- ...... Rs.25,000/- ..... suffering

Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-

Loss of consortium/ Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.80,000/- .... Loss of love and affection

Total Rs.2,68,600/- Rs.10,000/-

The amount to be deducted by the appellant from the balance outstanding amount awarded is Rs.2,58,600/- (2,68,600-10,000)

13. So the appeal is liable to be allowed to the extent of

reducing Rs.2,58,600/- [(1,53,600 + 10,000 + 25,000 +

80,000)-10,000], from the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

14. The award is dated 30.08.2016 and the 1st respondent

filed the appeal before this Court on 14.07.2017. So admittedly,

the award amount was not deposited before the Tribunal within the

five months' period as stipulated in the award.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the

appeal has been preferred and is admitted by this Court, he may

not be burdened with interest @ 11 % per annum after five months

of the award. He further also submitted that Rs.11,00,000/- was

already deposited as per orders of this Court, and only the balance

is outstanding.

16. This Court is inclined to accept that argument and it is

ordered that the award amount will carry interest @ 9%

throughout, and no hike is permitted @ 11%. From the balance

amount to be deposited, the appellant can deduct Rs.2,58,600/-

(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand and Six Hundred only) and

the balance due has to be deposited in the Bank account of

respondents 1 to 3 herein, in equal share, with 9% interest per

annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in

Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in

O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the

liabilities, if any, of respondents 1 to 3 herein, towards Tax, balance

court fee and legal benefit fund.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent shown above.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/25.03.2023.