Kerala High Court
Sasikumar vs Managing Director K.S.R.T.C., ... on 17 February, 2025
2025:KER:15498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 437 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.08.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.557 OF 2009
OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SASIKUMAR
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI,
MATTATHIL HOUSE,
THANGAL NAGAR,
PALLURUTHY, COCHIN.6
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
K.S.R.T.C.,
ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN. 682031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.,SC, KSRTC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.437 of 2018
2
2025:KER:15498
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No. 557 of 2009 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded on account of the injuries sustained
to him in a motor accident that occurred on 07.04.2008.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
On 07.04.2008 at 8.45 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in a
KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL-15/3078, along Cherthala - Arookutty
road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent
the same slipped off the road and hit against an electric post. Due to the
impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained severe injuries.
3. The Managing Director of the KSRTC was arrayed as 1st
respondent and the driver of the offending bus was arrayed as 2nd
respondent. Both respondents entered appearance and filed written
statements mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.
4. During the trial, the petitioner was examined as PW1, and the
2025:KER:15498
documents produced from his side were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. From the
side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.
5. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the
2nd respondent, and the 1st respondent being the owner was held liable to pay
the compensation. The compensation amount was fixed at Rs.66,325/- with
8% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate
costs. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the present
appeal has been preferred.
6. I heard Sri. Rahul Sasi, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian P.A., the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under the various heads is too meager
and hence warrants interference. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that already a reasonable amount has been
awarded by the tribunal as compensation and there is no scope for any
interference.
2025:KER:15498
8. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is gatherable that there
is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding the inadequacy of the compensation awarded. For the purpose of
determining compensation under the head of loss of earnings, the Tribunal
assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/-. As the accident
occurred in the year 2008, in view of the decision in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
[(2011) 13 SCC 236], the tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the
petitioner at Rs.6,500/- notionally. The Tribunal reckoned only two months
period of loss of earnings while awarding compensation under the head of
loss of earnings. The medical records produced and marked in evidence
reveal that the petitioner had sustained a fracture shaft of the humerus left.
The nature of the injury itself suggests that the petitioner would have been
prevented from doing any job or earning any income at least for five months.
Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of
Rs. 32,500/- [Rs. 6,500/- X 5] as compensation under the head of loss of
earnings. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.10,000/-, the
2025:KER:15498
petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 22,500/- as additional
compensation under the head of loss of earnings.
9. Under the head of compensation for pain and sufferings, only an
amount of Rs.25,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal. Evidently, the
petitioner had undergone 21 days of inpatient treatment in connection with
the accident. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the treatment procedure undergone by him, and the days of
inpatient treatment, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.35,000/- has to
be awarded under the head of pain and suffering, entitling the petitioner to
get an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
[Rs.35,000 - 25,000] under the said head.
10. Similarly, only an amount of Rs.15,000/- is seen awarded by the
tribunal under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. I have
already mentioned that the petitioner had undergone 21 days of inpatient
treatment. While awarding compensation under the said head, the Tribunal
ought not to have overlooked the hardships and inconvenience endured by
the petitioner in connection with the accident. I am of the view that an
2025:KER:15498
additional amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) has to be
awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.
11. Hence, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of
Rs.37,500/- (Rs.22,500/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) as additional
compensation.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is
allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 37,500/-
(Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at the rate
of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit after deducting interest for a period of 401
days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this
Court on 08.03.2019 in C.M. Appln. No.537/2018. The 1st respondent,
owner of the vehicle is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with
interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN,
JUDGE
HKH/17.02.2025
