Anitha (W/o Late Sivadas) and others v. Jayesan and The Managing Director, KSRTC

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **MACA.No. 1797 of 2011 ( )** **-------------------------(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO. 794/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 27-02-2008)** **-------------------------------** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS :** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. ANITHA, AGED 41 YEARS,** - **W/O.LATE SIVADAS, HOUSE NO.667, KUNAMPURAYCKAL, KALAPPURA WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **2. ARJUN, AGED 21 YEARS,** - **S/O.LATE SIVADAS, HOUSE NO.667, KUNAMPURAYCKAL, KALAPPURA WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **3. ARUN,AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.LATE SIVADAS,HOUSE NO.667, KUNAMPURAYCKAL, KALAPPURA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. (MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ANITHA 1ST APPELLANT)** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. JAYESAN,** **S/O.SEKHARAN, KODIPURACKAL HOUSE, MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.2, ALAPPUZHA- PIN-688 549** ## **2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,** **K.S.R.T.C, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -695 001** **R2 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, KSRTC SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of December, 2013 ## J U D G M E N T ## K. Ramarkishnan, J The claimants in O.P.(M.V.).No.794/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha are the appellants herein. The appellants who are the wife and children of late Sivadas, filed the application for compensation for the death of their breadwinner, who died in a motor vehicle accident, caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent and owned by the 2[nd] respondent/ corporation. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal found that, the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent and awarded a total compensation of 3,30,000/- on₹ various heads as follows: M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 2 |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount**<br>**awarded₹**| |---|---|---| |1|Compensation for pecuniary loss|3, 00, 000| |2|For loss of love and affection|10, 000| |3|For loss of consortium to the first<br>petitioner|10, 000| |4|For pain and suffering|5, 000| |5|Transportation expenses|2, 000| |6|Funeral expenses|3, 000| ||Total|3, 30, 000| Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal before this court, seeking enhancement. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 3. The counsel for the appellants submitted that, the deceased was aged 41 years and working as a weaving worker in the Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd., and getting a monthly income of 6,000/- per month. But₹ the tribunal has arbitrarily fixed his monthly income as ₹2,500/- per month, which is palpably low. Further, the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium, love and affection, pain and suffering, funeral expenses are also on the lower side. No amount was awarded under the head loss of estate and as such, the appellants are entitled to get enhancement on all heads. 3 ## M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that, the deceased was aged 41 years and the proper multiplier as per the decision reported in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)** is 14, but the tribunal has taken 15 as multiplier, which is not correct. The total compensation awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this court. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail. 6. The case of the appellants was that, the deceased was working as a weaving worker in the Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd., and getting a monthly income of 6,000/- per month. They have produced₹ Ext.A7 to prove the salary of the deceased, in which it has mentioned that he was having a basic pay of 62.05/-₹ and a variable D.A. of 4002.05/- and getting a total₹ monthly pay of 4064.10/- and this certificate was issued₹ as on the date of his death and this, salary relates to the period from May, June, July - 2003. The tribunal has only M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 4 taken a notional income of 2,500/- per month, on the₹ ground that the D.A. shown is variable D.A. and so, he has no permanent income as such. Further, it has not been properly proved by examining the person who issued the same. But considering the fact that, he is aged 41 years and working in that corporation, we feel that the tribunal was not justified in notionally fixing his income as 2,500/- per month. Considering these aspects, and₹ considering his future prospects, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be re-fixed as 4,000/- per₹ month. 7. There is some force in the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent regarding the multiplier. As per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the proper multiplier to the age group of 41 years, as the deceased was at the time of accident is 14 and not 15. So, if a recalculation is made on that basis, the appellants will be entitled to get an amount of ₹ 4,48,000/(4,000x12x14x2/3) instead of 3,00,000/- awarded by the₹ tribunal under the head loss of dependency. So the M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 5 appellants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of 1,48,000/- under that head. ₹ 8. The first appellant was aged only 33 years at the time of the death of her husband and she is having two minor children as well. So there is no possibility of remarriage. She has lost her husband at the young age and she will have to live with the minor children, without the support and companionship of her husband for the remaining period of her life. So, considering these things, the amount of 10,000/- awarded by the tribunal under₹ the head loss of consortium is also on the lower side and we enhance the same to 50,000/-. Similarly, the₹ children are minor and they have lost the love and affection of their father at their young age. So considering these facts, we are inclined to enhance the compensation under the head love and affection to ₹ 30,000/- from 10,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The₹ amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is also on the lower side and we enhance the same to ₹ 10,000/- from 5,000/-. The tribunal has awarded only₹ M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 6 ₹ 3,000/- under the head funeral expenses. Even in the year 1994, the legislature has fixed 2,500/- as the₹ amount payable to funeral expenses. The accident occurred in the year 2003. So we are inclined to enhance the funeral expenses to 10,000/-₹ from 3,000/-. No₹ amount was awarded under the head loss of estate. So we are inclined to award 10,000/- under that head. The₹ appellants are not entitled to get any enhancement under other heads, as the amounts awarded by the tribunal under other heads appears to be just and proper. In all, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of 2,30,000/-,₹ over and above what has been awarded by the tribunal, which the 2[nd] respondent corporation is liable to pay with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition, till date of payment. Three months time is granted to the 2[nd] respondent/ Corporation to deposit this amount as well. The amounts shall be shared equally among the appellants. The amounts due to the minors shall be deposited in a nationalised bank, till they attain majority, with liberty for M.A.C.A. No.1797 of 2011 7 the first appellant to withdraw the monthly interest accrued for the benefit of the minors. With the above modification of the impugned award of the tribunal, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss