High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2013-12-04Appeal disposed of with modification of the tri...

MACA.No. 285 of 2010 (Against the Award in OPMV 596/2006 of District Court & Sessions & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta dated 17-08-2009)

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 285 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ramakrishnan, J.
S. Siri Jagan, J.
Judgment Date: 2013-12-04
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court, applying the Sarla Verma framework and the Amrit Bhanu Shali/Annamkutty line of cases, refixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.3,000, adopted a multiplier of 18 for a 19-year-old, and deducted personal expenses at 1/2 for a bachelor. It awarded Rs. 3,24,000 for dependency (instead of Rs. 1,92,000) and enhanced other heads: love and affection to Rs. 25,000; pain and suffering to Rs. 10,000; funeral expenses to Rs. 10,000; loss of estate Rs. 10,000. The appellants were entitled to an additional Rs. 1,67,000 over the Tribunal award, with 9% interest from the date of petition, and three months to deposit the amount. The enhanced amount was to be paid to the parents (1 and 2) alone. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of with modification of the tribunal award; enhanced compensation with interest; three months to deposit; amounts payable to parents 1 and 2.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.K. Saidalavi
Subaida
Rahiyanath
Muneer

Respondents

The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram (KSRTC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambi ar, SC, KSRTC
• Adv. Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SC, KSRTC
• Adv. Sri.Joy George, SC, KSRTC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal filed by the parents and siblings of the deceased Abid challenging the award of Rs. 2,13,500 granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in MACT OPMV No. 596/2006. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of a KSRTC vehicle and awarded compensation across heads including loss of dependency, love and affection, transport, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of clothing. The appellants argued that the deceased, aged 19, was a marble worker earning about Rs. 8,000 per month and that the Tribunal under-assessed his income (Rs. 1,500) and misapplied the multiplier, adopting an age-based multiplier of 16 instead of 18, following Sarla Verma and subsequent Kerala cases. They also argued for higher awards under several heads, and for adopting the correct personal-expenses deduction (half, for bachelors) per Sarla Verma. The respondents contended the Tribunal’s factual findings were justified given insufficient evidence of income and that the existing corpus of law supported the award. The High Court re-evaluated income, multiplier, and deductions, applying the Sarla Verma framework to determine a higher loss-of-dependency figure and enhanced several heads, while maintaining some heads unchanged. The appeal was disposed of by modifying the award, granting additional compensation with interest and a time limit for deposit, and directing distribution to the parents.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation – multiplier determined by age of the deceased, not parents; deduction of personal expenses for bachelors to be half (not one-third)
Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd (2012 ACJ 2002) – reaffirmed the approach to multiplier for bachelors based on the deceased’s age
Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2013 (4) KLT 160) – followed the Amrit Bhanu Shali reasoning in Kerala decisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the deceased was a 19-year-old marble worker earning about Rs. 8,000 per month, but the Tribunal notionally fixed his income at Rs. 1,500 per month. They urged adoption of Rs. 3,000 per month as income, and argued the correct multiplier under Sarla Verma 18 (not 16 as used by the Tribunal) since the deceased was a bachelor; deduction of personal expenses should be one-half of his income, not one-third. They relied on Amrit Bhanu Shali and Annamkutty for shifting the focus to the deceased’s age for multiplier. They also urged compensation enhancements under loss of dependency, love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering, arguing that the Tribunal’s figures were too low. They sought an overall uplift and interest on the enhanced sum.

Contentions of Respondents

KSRTC contended there was no convincing evidence of the deceased’s income; the Tribunal’s fixation of Rs.1,500 was justified. They conceded, however, the need to apply Sarla Verma’s framework, but argued the net effect did not warrant the substantial enhancement urged by the appellants. They pointed to the absence of evidence of higher income and argued the award was just and proper, with the proper deduction for personal expenses and an appropriate multiplier. They relied on precedent to defend the Tribunal’s approach.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010(2) KLT 802 SC	Positive	Used as the controlling precedent for the multiplier and deduction of personal expenses (half) in cases involving bachelors, leading to the recalculation and enhancement of compensation.
Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd	2012 ACJ 2002	Positive	Cited to support applying age of the deceased (not parents) for multiplier in cases of bachelors, guiding the revised multiplier of 18.
Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd	2013 (4) KLT 160	Positive	Followed as Kerala authority reinforcing Amrit Bhanu Shali’s approach in fixing multiplier based on the deceased’s age.

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 MACA.No. 285 of 2010 (Against the Award in OPMV 596/2006 of District Court & Sessions & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta dated 17-08-2009) 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 MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **MACA.No. 285 of 2010 ( )** **-------------------------** **(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 596/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT. & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KALPETTA DATED 17-08-2009)** ## **APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS:-** **-------------------------------------------** **1. T.K.SAIDALAVI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, F/O.DECEASED ABID,ESIDING AT THUPPILIKKANDAN HOUSE, MUNDERI, KALPETTA POST, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **2. SUBAIDA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.T.K.SAIDALAVI, MOTHER OF THE DECEASED ABID DO. DO.** **3. RAHIYANATH, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.T.K.SAIDALAVI, SISTER OF THE DECEASED ABID DO. DO.** **4. MUNEER, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.T.K.SAIDALAVI, BROTHER OF THE DECEASED ABID DO. DO.** **BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA** ## **RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT NO.2:-** **----------------------------------------------------** **THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC 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:-** **KKS** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** ............................................................................ M.A.C.A.NO.285 OF 2010 ........................................................................... Dated this the 4[th] day of December, 2013. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ramakrishnan, J.** The claimants in OP(MV)No.596/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, are the appellants herein. The claimants are the parents and siblings of deceased Abid and they filed the application for compensation for the death of Abid, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver owned by the respondent Corporation. 2. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver owned by the respondent herein and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,13,500/under various heads as follows: Loss of dependency Rs.1,92,000 Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000 Transport to hospital Rs.10,000 Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 500 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000 -------------Total Rs.2,13,500 M.A.C.A.NO.285 OF 2010 2 3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal before this Court seeking enhancement. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent. 5. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged 19 years and working as a marble worker and getting Rs.8,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed his monthly income as Rs.1,500/- which is palpably low. Further, the Tribunal has taken the age of the parents for adopting the multiplier and awarded compensation on that basis, which is also not correct as the age of the deceased ought to have been taken as the basis for fixing the multiplier under that head in view of the decision reported in **Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd** (2012 ACJ 2002) followed by us in the decision reported in **Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd** (2013 (4) KLT 160). Further the amounts awarded under the head loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses are on the lower side. No amount was awarded under the head loss of estate. The appellants are entitled to enhancement under 3 M.A.C.A.NO.285 OF 2010 other heads. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that in the absence of convincing evidence adduced on the side of the appellants to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in fixing his monthly income as Rs.1,500/-. However, it is settled law that in the case of bachelors, the multiplier will depend upon the age of the dependents and not on the age of the deceased. Further, in view of the decision reported in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** (2010(2) KLT 802 SC), the Tribunal ought to have deducted half for the personal expenses instead of one third as done in this case. So, according to the learned counsel, the total compensation awarded is just and proper. 7. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail. 8. Though the appellants have a case that the deceased was working as a marble worker and getting Rs.8,000/- per month, they did not adduce any evidence to prove this fact. In such circumstances, the Tribunal can only notionally fix his monthly income for assessing the compensation. Considering 4 M.A.C.A.NO.285 OF 2010 the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2006 and also considering the prospects of the youngster, who died in the accident, we feel that the amount of Rs.1,500/- fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income appears to be on the lower side and we refix the same as Rs.3,000/- per month. In the decision reported in **Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd** (2012 ACJ 2002), the Supreme Court has held that in the case of bachelors and parents being the claimants, the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier and not the age of the parents. This was followed by us in **Annamkutty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd** (2013 (4) KLT 160). So the proper multiplier applicable to the age of 19 years in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in **Sarla Verma** (cited supra) will be 18 and not 16 as adopted by the Tribunal. Further, as per the decision reported in **Sarla Verma** (cited supra), deduction of personal expenses will be half in the case of bachelors and not one third as done by the Tribunal. If a recalculation is made on that basis, the appellants will be entitled to get Rs.3,24,000/- (3000x12x18x1/2) instead of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss M.A.C.A.NO.285 OF 2010 5 of dependency and we award this amount under that head. 9. The parents have lost their son and they will have to be with this feeling for the remaining period of their life as well. In fact the siblings also lost the love and affection of their brother. So considering this aspect, the amount of Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection appears to be on the lower side and we enhance it to Rs.25,000/-. Similarly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is also on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. We are also inclined to enhance the funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- considering the expenses to be incurred for meeting that purpose. No amount was awarded under the head loss of estate. So, we award Rs.10,000/- under that head. In all other heads, the claimants are not entitled to enhancement as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and and proper. 9. In all, the appellants will be entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the respondent Corporation is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till the payment. Three months' time is granted to the respondent M.A.C.A.NO.285 OF 2010 6 Corporation to deposit this amount as well. Since appellants 3 and 4 are the siblings of the deceased, we direct that this additional amount to be payable to the parents namely 1 and 2 alone. 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.** cl /true copy/ P.S. to Judge