High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-24Appeal partly allowed; compensation adjusted pe...

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MRS. TINTU, ALEN SUNU, ALWIN SUNU and R. KRISHNA KUMAR

Case / Petition Number:MACA 2452 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2023-03-24
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent shown: reduce the Tribunal’s award by Rs. 2,58,600, and deposit the balance amount in the bank accounts of respondents 1 to 3 in equal shares, with 9% interest from the date of petition until deposit, within two months, after deducting any liabilities for tax and legal benefit fund. The award shall carry 9% interest from the petition date; no 11% levy for default. No costs order. The award, as modified, stands.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; compensation adjusted per Pranay Sethi framework and Orient Insurance precedent; remaining heads upheld. }

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, represented by its Managing Director, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram 695023

Respondents

MRS. TINTU, W/o. Late Sunumon; ALEN SUNU, S/o. Late Sunumon; ALWIN SUNU; R. KRISHNA KUMAR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.T.P.SAJAN
• SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from MACA No. 2452 of 2017, arising out of OP(MV) No.1029 of 2014 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The 32-year-old deceased Sunumon, husband of the first claimant and father of the other claimants, died in a road traffic collision on 22 May 2011 when the KSRTC bus KL-15/4012 struck his motorcycle. The Tribunal granted Rs 25,69,000 with 9% interest from the petition date and directed deposit within five months; failure to deposit attracted 11% interest. The KSRTC challenges the award as excessive, contending misapplication of future-prospect and other heads. The appellant argues that future-prospects should be 40% (not 50%), consistent with Pranay Sethi (2017), and that income should be calculated after deducting one-third for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 16 based on age, yielding a dependency loss of Rs 21,50,400, which would reduce the Tribunal’s Rs 23,04,000 by Rs 1,53,600. It also submits Rs 10,000 too much on funeral expenses (Pranay Sethi), and Rs 80,000 excess on loss of consortium/love and affection, while pain and suffering is not payable since death was instantaneous (per Oriental Insurance v. Kahlon). The High Court partially allows the appeal, reducing the total by Rs 2,58,600, and directs deposit of the remaining amount in equal shares to the claimants with 9% interest, within two months, while maintaining other heads as assessed. The award thus stands modified but not wholly reversed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects doctrine: 40% addition for dependent, younger than 40 without permanent job (Pranay Sethi, 2017)
Deduction of one-third of income towards personal expenses (Pranay Sethi principle)
Pain and suffering not payable in instant death personal injury claims (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kahlon, 2021)
Loss of estate, loss of consortium/loss of love and affection considerations under Pranay Sethi framework]
parties_case_law_context_notes

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred by allowing 50% future prospects instead of the 40% standard under Pranay Sethi for an employee with no fixed income, leading to an inflated dependency base and overcompensation. By adopting 40% future prospects, pre-tax monthly income becomes Rs.11,200 after 1/3 deduction; with a multiplier of 16, loss of dependency becomes Rs.21,50,400; the Tribunal’s Rs.23,04,000 is excessive by Rs.1,53,600. Funeral expenses of Rs.25,000 should have been Rs.15,000; loss of estate should be Rs.15,000 rather than Rs.5,000; loss of consortium/love and affection should total Rs.1,20,000; the head for pain and suffering should be eliminated since death was instantaneous. On deposit, interest should be 9% (not 11%), and the balance after deduction should be deposited within two months, after accounting for tax and other liabilities.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal’s overall award was just and reasonable; no further alterations are required beyond those enforced by the appeal. The petitioners argue the award’s heads should be maintained as decided by the Tribunal unless a clear legal error is shown. The Court ultimately deems only partial interference warranted, maintaining most heads while adjusting the amounts per the Pranay Sethi framework and Orient Insurance precedent.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for the 40% future-prospects rule applicable to a person under 40 with no fixed income; the judgment applies this principle in recalculating dependency and final compensation.
Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Kahlon (Deceased) Through His Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another	(2021) SCC Online SC 691	Positive	Cited to justify non-payment of pain and suffering where the death is instantaneous in a personal injury claim.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MRS. TINTU, ALEN SUNU, ALWIN SUNU and R. KRISHNA KUMAR and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] 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:`** ``` KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSMANAGINGDIRECTOR,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695023. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN ``` ## **`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`** ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY HEARDON24.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 2452 of 2017 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** The 1[st] 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 4[th] respondent (the 2[nd] 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/1[st] 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 MACA 2452 of 2017 3 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 MACA 2452 of 2017 4 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** MACA 2452 of 2017 5 **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. MACA 2452 of 2017 6 |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Amounts deducted in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|Rs.23,04,000/-|Rs.21,50,400/-|Rs.1,53,600/-|….| |Funeral expenses|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.10,000/-|| |Pain and suffering|Rs.25,000/-|……|Rs.25,000/-|…..| |Loss of estate|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.10,000/-| |Loss of consortium/ Loss of love and affection|Rs.2,00,000/-|Rs.1,20,000/-|Rs.80,000/-|….| |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)||||| 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 1[st] respondent filed the appeal before this Court on 14.07.2017. So admittedly, the award amount was not deposited before the Tribunal within the MACA 2452 of 2017 7 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 MACA 2452 of 2017 8 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.