MACA No. 2019 of 2013

## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945_ ## _MACA NO. 2019 OF 2013_ _AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.11.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.38 OF 2007 OF_ _MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:_ _*1 (K.RAVEENDRANATHAN S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, NARAYANA MANDIRAM, THUMPODU P.O., MADAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK.) *(EXPIRED)_ _**2 SULOCHANAMMA W/O.K.RAVEENDRANATHAN NARAYANA MANDIRAM, THUMPODU P.O., MADAVOOR VILLAGE, CHRAYINKEEZH TALUK._ _**3 R.S.RAJANI D/O SULOCHANAMMA NARAYANA MANDIRAM, THUMPODU P.O., MADAVOOR VILLAGE,CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK._ _** THE MEMO DATED 21/3/2018 REPORTING THE DEATH OF THE FIRST APPELLANT AND STATING THAT APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIRST APPELLANT IS RECORDED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/12/2021 IN MACA 2019/2013._ _BY ADVS. GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) A.R.DILEEP MANU SEBASTIAN K.J.SHARATH KUMAR_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ - _1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001_ - _2 GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, VENGAVILA VEEDU, ARCHAL, ARCHAL MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE - 691 306._ _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _2_ ## _BY ADV.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _3_ ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants were the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.38/2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of the son of appellants 1 and 2, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 22.11.2005. The 3rd appellant is the sister of the deceased. 2. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling, was hit by a K.S.R.T.C. bus driven by the 2[nd] respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. The 1st respondent is the Managing Director of K.S.R.T.C. Even though the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Punalur, he succumbed to the injuries, while undergoing treatment on the same day. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident and was getting Rs.6,000/- as monthly income from his avocation as a sales executive in a private establishment. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation. 3. The 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents filed a joint written statement denying the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. According to him, the accident occurred due to _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _4_ the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. 4. To substantiate the contentions, the appellants produced and marked Exts.A1 to A8. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent and both respondents, being the owner and driver of the vehicle were held responsible for the same. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.1,86,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 1st respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian P.A. learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement of compensation as sought in the appeal, is to be awarded or not. It is to be noted that, the amount awarded towards loss of dependency was assessed by the Tribunal by taking the monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _5_ Besides the same, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospects of the deceased and the multiplier applied was that of the age of the parents of the deceased and not with respect to the age of the deceased. In the light of the various decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, the assessment made in that fashion was not proper. As far as the monthly income is concerned, the amount of Rs.4,000/appears to be on the lower side considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2005. Even though he claimed to be a Sales Executive with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. However, in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary employee even without any skills as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004. Therefore, in this case, an amount of Rs.5,000/- could be taken as a reasonable monthly income considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2005. Since the deceased was aged 28 years, an addition of 40% has to be made in the light of observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** . Similarly, the multiplier to be applied is with reference to the _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _6_ age of the deceased and not that of the age of the dependent parents, as held in **Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and Pranay Sethi (supra).** Therefore, the proper multiplier is 17. Since he died as a bachelor, in the light of **Sarla Verma (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (supra),** the deduction to be made is 50% towards personal expenses. Thus, when computing the compensation with the above criteria, the amount would come to Rs.7,14,000/[(5000+40%) x 12 x 17 x 1/2]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,68,000/- and thus, the additional compensation is Rs.5,46,000/-. 7. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation expenses and funeral expenses. In the light of **Pranay Sethi (supra)** an amount of Rs.15,000/- is to be awarded for funeral expenses and therefore, after appropriating Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head. Since the entire amount of Rs 5,000/- as mentioned above is appropriated under the head of funeral expenses, a separate amount of Rs.1,000/- is awarded towards transportation expenses. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate was _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _7_ only Rs.3,000/- and in the light of **Pranay Sethi (supra),** a further sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded. 8. The next head which requires consideration is the loss of consortium. In the light of **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others, 2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.** **Satinder Kaur [2020 (3) KHC 760],** the 1st and 2nd appellants, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection. In **Satinder Kaur (supra)** it was categorically observed that when compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, no separate amount needs to be awarded towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the amount of Rs.10,000/- can be adjusted against the amount fixed for loss of consortium by this Court. Thus, the additional amount would come to Rs.70,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to the appellants 1 and 2. 9. It is also to be noted that, the death was while undergoing treatment in the hospital and therefore, a notional amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded towards the pain and suffering of the deceased. Thus, the total additional _MACA NO.2019 OF 2013_ _8_ compensation is determined as Rs.6,44,000/- [5,46,000 + 10000 + 1000 + 12000+70000+5000]. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Award dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur in O.P.(MV).No.38 of 2007 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.6,44,000/- [Rupees six lakhs and forty-four thousand only] and the said amount shall be deposited by the 1[st] respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable 1[st] respondent to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, they fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** scs/DG