Irine Thomas @ Molly A. v. KSRTC and others (MACA No. 564 of 2014)

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 2 [ ND ] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 564 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.10.2011 IN OP(MV) NO.1037 OF 2008 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM. ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5:`** - **`1 IRINE THOMAS @ MOLLY A., W/O. LATGD THOMAS ISSAC, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O, PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.`** - **`2 LINTA ANNA THOMAS (MINOR), D/O. LATE THOMAS ISSAC, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O, PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER IST RESPONDENT.`** - **`3 LEO ISSAC THOMAS (MINOR) AGED 12 YEARS, S/O. LATE THOMAS ISSAC, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER IST RESPONDENT.`** ``` 4 ISSAC ABRAHAM, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. ``` - **`5 ANNAMMA ISSAC (DIED), W/O. ISSAC ABRAHAM, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM.`** MACA 564 of 2014 2 ``` BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ADDL.PETITIONERS 6 TO 8:`** - **`1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.`** - **`2 RAJU STEEPHAN,`** ``` S/O. STEEPHAN, KUNNEL HOUSE, PRAYAR KARA, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 685 001. ``` - **`3 MUHAMMAD,`** ``` SHAFEEGHAR HOUSE, KODIMATHA P.O., KOTTAYAM - 685 001. ``` - **`4 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MATTEETHARA BUILDING, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 685 001.`** - **`5 RENJITH K.R. (DIED), S/O. REGIMON, KOLLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,`** ``` VELLOOR P.O, PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 685 001. ``` - **`6 LAILA BABU, W/O. BABU, AGED 60 YEARS, PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADAVU P.O., PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 685 001.`** MACA 564 of 2014 ``` 7 DAISY EASOW, W/O. JOHN EASOW, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM - 685 001. ``` ``` 8 ABRAHAM ISSAC, S/O. ISSAC ABRAHAM, AGED 54 YEARS, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 685 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.,SC, KSRTC SRI.T.S.ABDUL KHADER FOR R2 SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SC, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SRI.SHIBY ALEX(K/123/2003) FOR R2 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 564 of 2014 4 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is filed by the petitioners in OP(MV) No. 1037 of 2008 (legal heirs of deceased Thomas Issac) challenging the award of the Tribunal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. Sri. Thomas Issac was a 38 year old man working as General Helper in Travancore Cements Ltd. On 20.01.2008 at 06.30 a.m., while he was travelling in an autorickshaw from Kottayam to Gandhinagar through MC road, KL-15-5579 KSRTC Bus, driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction, and dashed against the autorickshaw, and he sustained fatal injuries. Though he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he succumbed to the injuries within one hour. The legal heirs of deceased Thomas Issac approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.13,42,550/-. Hence this appeal. MACA 564 of 2014 5 3. The 5th petitioner, the mother of deceased Thomas Issac is no more and the legal heirs were impleaded as additional petitioners 6 to 8 in the O.P.(MV). 4. The 1st respondent, the Managing Director, KSRTC, is the owner of the offending bus. 2nd respondent was its driver, and 3rd respondent was the owner of the autorickshaw in which the deceased was travelling, 4th respondent is the Insurer of the autorickshaw and 5th respondent is the driver of the autorickshaw and he is no more. 5. In the appeal, legal heirs of the deceased 5th appellant-mother were made respondents 6 to 8. Respondents - 1, 2 and 4 entered appearance, and others opted to remain absent in spite of service of notice. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4. 7. The 4th respondent is the Insurer of the autorickshaw. Learned Tribunal fixed the liability on respondents 1 and 2, and no liability was fixed on the 4th respondent. That finding is not under challenge also. MACA 564 of 2014 6 8. Now this Court is called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants is mainly challenging inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, for loss of dependency. 10. Ext.A6 salary certificate will show that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.8,753.20 including permanent allowance. Learned Tribunal accepted that income for assessing his loss of dependency. But nothing was given towards his future prospects, though he was found to be a 38 year old General Helper, working in Travancore Cements Ltd. Since he was a permanent employee in Travancore Cements Ltd. with a fixed salary, he was liable to get 50% addition towards future prospects. So his income would have been taken as Rs.13,130/- (8,753+50%). He was having four dependents. So ¼ has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So the balance income will be Rs.9,848/(13,130-¼). The multiplier applicable was 15 as he was aged MACA 564 of 2014 7 only 38. So the compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.17,72,640/- (9,848x12x15). 11. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.13,00,050/- towards loss of dependency. On deducting that amount, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.4,72,590/-, as enhanced compensation for loss of dependency. 12. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. As per the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16** **SCC 680]** **`,`** Rs.15,000/- was liable to be awarded. So, the appellants are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’. 13. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-. The deceased succumbed to the injuries within one hour of the accident. Moreover, since pain and suffering being a personal claim, the legal heirs are not entitled to get that amount. So Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be deducted. MACA 564 of 2014 8 14. Towards loss of consortium, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each relying on **Pranay Sethi’s case** cited _supra_ . So they are entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- in total. Then Rs.15,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is liable to be deducted. So the balance entitled by the appellants towards loss of consortium will be Rs.1,30,000/- (1,60,000-30,000). 15. Towards loss of estate, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Going by **Pranay Sethi’s case** cited _supra_ , the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. |Head of claim|Amount<br>awarded by<br>the Tribunal|Amount<br>awarded in<br>appeal|Amounts<br>deducted<br>in appeal|Difference to be<br>drawn as<br>enhanced<br>compensation| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of<br>dependency|Rs.13,00,050/-|Rs.17,72,640/-||Rs.4,72,590/-| |Funeral<br>expenses|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.10,000/-| |Pain & suffering|Rs.5,000/-||Rs.5,000/-|| |Loss of love and<br>affection / Loss<br>of consortium|Rs.30,000/-|Rs.1,60,000/-||Rs.1,30,000/-| |Loss of estate|…..|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.15,000/-| |Total|||Rs.5,000/-|Rs.6,27,590/-| |Enhanced compensation is Rs.**6,22,590/-**(6,27,590 - 5,000)||||| MACA 564 of 2014 9 16. So appellants 1 to 4 are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.6,22,590/- (4,72,590 + 10,000 + 1,30,000 + 15,000) - 5,000. 17. The 1st respondent-Managing Director, KSRTC, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,22,590/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety only), with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, (excluding 747 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. The amount shall be deposited as follows:- Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be deposited in the Bank account of the 4th appellant-father. The balance amount shall be deposited in the Bank account of appellants 1 to 3 in equal share. 19. 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 MACA 564 of 2014 10 deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/-