MACA Nos. 1881 of 2012 and 1911 of 2012: Chandrasekharan and others v. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation; RadhaKrishnan v. The Managing Director, KSRTC

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## `MACA NO. 1881 OF 2012` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.05.2012 IN OP(MV) 1083/2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA] ``` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, VELLANCHERY HOUSE, CHERUSSERY DESOM, PERINCHERY P.O VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2SOBHANA W/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN VELLANCHERY HOUSE,CHERUSSERY DESOM, PERINCHERY P.O VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3SANESH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN VELLANCHERY HOUSE,CHERUSSERY DESOM, PERINCHERY P.O VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN- 695 001. 2NIXON V.J., S/O.JOSEPH VELIYIL HOUSE, KALAVOOR P.O., KATTOOR,ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 680 702. ``` ``` R1 BY ADV. ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1911/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 2 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## `MACA NO. 1911 OF 2012` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.05.2012 IN OP(MV) 1084/2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA] ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.GOPALAN, KALLIYATH HOUSE, VALLUKUNNATHUSSERY DESOM, PERINCHERY P.O., CHEVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2NIXON V.J. S/O.JOSEPH.V.A., VELIYIL HOUSE, KALAVOOR P.O., KATTOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702. ``` ``` R1 BY BY ADV ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1881/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Both these appeals arise from a common award passed in OP (MV) No.1083/2008 and OP(MV)No. 1084/2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. 2. OP (MV) No.1083/2008 was filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of one Sanub, the son of claimants 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3[rd] claimant therein, due to the injuries sustained in a Motor Accident that occurred on 13.07.2008. OP (MV) No.1084/2008 was filed by the petitioner therein, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in the very same accident. 3. According to the claimants, the accident occurred when the motor cycle ridden by the petitioner in OP (MV) No.1084/2008 with the deceased Sanub as a pillion rider, was hit by a K.S.R.T.C Super Fast Passenger bus bearing registration No. KL.15-5772 driven by the 2nd respondent. The consequent to the injuries, the said Sanub died and the petitioner in OP (MV) No.1084/2008 sustained serious injuries. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 4. The respondents filed written statement disputing the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. According to them, the `MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 4` accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the petitioner in OP (MV) No.1084/2008. The quantum of compensation claimed in both claim petitions were also disputed. 5. The evidence in these cases consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A21 were marked from the side of the appellants. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the bus. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 were held jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation in OP (MV) No.1083/2008 was fixed as Rs.3,29,500/- and in OP (MV) No. 1084/2008, the compensation was fixed as Rs.91,915/-. The said amounts were to be recovered from the respondents with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportional costs. These appeals were filed in such circumstances by the respective claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard Sri. Binoy Ram, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in both the appeals and Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in both appeals. **7. OP (MV) No. 1083/2008 which is the subject matter in M.A.C.A No. 1881 of 2012.** This Claim Petition is submitted seeking compensation for the `MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 5` death of one Sanub. Appellants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and the 3[rd] respondent is his brother. According to the appellants, the deceased was a Welder by profession, with a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. He was 18 years old. However, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the nature of employment and the income derived therefrom. Even though Ext.A6 salary certificate was produced, the same was not accepted by the tribunal on the ground that, the same was not properly proved and instead Rs.3,000/- was taken as the monthly income. It is to be noted in this regard, the accident in this case occurred in the year 2008. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , the Honorable Supreme Court was please to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. Therefore, the monthly income of Rs.4,000/- claimed in Ext.A6 salary certificate, appears to be reasonable and the same can be accepted. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 has to be applied and 40% of the monthly income has to be added towards future prospects. Similarly, as he died as a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as well. Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the above-revised criteria, the amount of compensation under loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,04,800/-(4,000+40%)x12x18x1/2. The amount already ``` MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 6 ``` awarded by the tribunal is Rs.3,24,000/- and thus the additional compensation would come to Rs. 2,80,800/-. 7.1. When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that, only an amount of Rs.2,000/- was awarded by the tribunal towards funeral expenses. Therefore, in the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] a further sum of Rs.13,000/- is granted. Similarly, an amount of Rs.2,500/was awarded by the tribunal towards loss of estate, which is also inadequate as the proper amount should have been Rs.15,000/- in the light of **Pranay Sethi’s** case (supra). Therefore, a further sum of Rs.12,500/- is awarded. No amount is seen awarded towards loss of consortium. In the light of **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram** [(2018) 18 SCC 130], and **United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and** **other** [(2021)11 SCC 780], the appellants 1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium @ of Rs.40,000/- each, thereby making out a total amount of Rs.80,000/-. Thus, the total additional compensation receivable by the appellants is determined as Rs.3,86,300/( 2,80,800+13,000+12,500+80,000). ## **8. O.P (MV).No.1084/2008 which is a subject matter in MACA 1911 of 2012.** This claim petition is submitted seeking compensation for the `MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 7` injuries sustained to the victim. He was aged 47 years at the time of the accident and according to him he was conducting a cable TV Network with a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Consequent to the accident he suffered the following injuries. “(1) Comminuted intra article supra condylar fracture right humerus(2) Lacerations and abrasions on both knees (3) Open reduction and internal fixation was done with plate and screws. (4) Other bodily injuries." Ext.A14 disability certificate was marked showing the disability as 9.77% and the same was proved by examining PW2, the medical officer who issued the same. The tribunal took the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- only. On perusal of the records, the said monthly income appears to be on the lower side. As observed above, in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , in respect of an ordinary worker, monthly income was taken as Rs.4,500/- by the Honorable Supreme Court for the year 2004. Therefore, Rs.4,500/which is claimed as a monthly income in this case appears to be reasonable and the same can be accepted. Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the said monthly income, the amount of compensation for disability would come to Rs.68,585/(4,500x12x13x9.77/100). The Tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs.42,120/- under this head. Thus, the additional amount accrued by the appellant under this head would come to Rs.26,465/-. ``` MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 8 ``` 8.1. No amount is seen awarded towards loss of income. Of course, there is no evidence to show that, he lost any income from his business of cable TV network, due to the injuries sustained. However, since he was not in a position to attend the responsibilities, certainly he would have incurred expenses for employing another person for carrying out his duties in his absence. Therefore, some amount has to be granted under this head. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant Rs.4,500/- under this head which is equivalent to one month’s monthly income of the appellant. The compensation awarded by the tribunal for pain and suffering was Rs.15,000/which appears to be on the lower side, taking note of the nature of the injuries referred to above. It is also to be noted that, he had undergone impatient treatment for 10 days as well. In such circumstances a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the said head. No amount is awarded by the tribunal towards loss of amenities. Since the injuries sustained by the appellant resulted in physical disablement as well, I deem it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Thus the total amount of additional compensation is determined as Rs.70,965/- (26,465+4,500+15,000+25,000). In the result, both these appeals are allowed with the following directions: ``` MACA Nos.1881/2012, 1911/2012 9 ``` a. The award dated 14.05.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.1083/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda is hereby modified by awarding an additional compensation of Rs.3,86,300/[Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty six thousand and Three hundred only] and it shall be recoverable from the 2[nd] respondent with interest at the same rate as ordered by the tribunal with proportionate costs. b. The award dated 14.05.2012 in O.P(MV) 1084/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.70,965/[Rupees Seventy thousand Nine hundred and Sixtyfive only] and the said amount shall be recoverable from the 2[nd] respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the tribunal with proportionate costs. Sd/- ## **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** Asw/pkk