Madhavi v. Subramanian and KSRTC

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **MACA.No.1095 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 490/2004 DATED 18-01-2008 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **MADHAVI AGED 74 YEARS W/O. LATE VELANDI, JAMSHYLE NIVAS, P.O. VYTHIRI, CHUNDALE VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 SUBRAMANIAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, KORANGOTTU THEKKURISSI, PALGHAT. 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R2 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 2 ## **`P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J`** ``` --------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1095 of 2014 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9[th] day of April 2021 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The appellant is the petitioner in O.P(M.V). No. 490/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The above claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained to the appellant in a road traffic accident. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal) ``` ``` 2. The short facts are like this: - On 23.09.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in a KSRTC Bus to Vythiri and when the Bus reached at Chellod Estate, another KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KL-15-2651 came from the opposite ``` MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 3 ``` direction hit the bus and as a result, she sustained serious injuries. She was taken to various hospitals on different dates. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1[st] respondent. Second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. ``` ``` 3. To substantiate the case, Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the petitioner and the petitioner herself was examined as PW1. After going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that the appellant is entitled an amount of Rs.44,550/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed. ``` `4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner` `and the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent.` MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 4 ``` 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is only Rs.1,500/-. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was a house wife/Coolie aged 65 years and was getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court inRamachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236]and contended that the Apex Court observed that even a coolie will get an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004. ``` ``` 6. I think there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel. The accident in this case was happened on 23.09.2003. Taking the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case (supra), I find that an amount of Rs.4,000/- can be fixed as monthly income of the appellant. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal taken the multiplier as ‘5’. Considering the age of the petitioner, ``` MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 5 ``` the correct multiplier is ‘7’. If that is the case, the compensation for disability is to be recalculated like this:- ``` ``` 4000x12x7x40/100=Rs. 1,34,400/- ``` ``` The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 36,000/- and that is to be deducted. Therefore, the appellant is entitled an additional amount of Rs.98,400/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand and Four Hundred Only) towards loss of disability. ``` ``` 7. As far as loss of earning is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the same for a period of one month taking the monthly income as Rs.1,500/-. Considering the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner including amputation of right hand, the appellant is entitled loss of earnings for a period of six months by fixing the monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. Then the amount will be Rs. 24,000/- (4000x6). Tribunal already granted an amount of Rs.1,500/- and that is to be ``` MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 6 ``` deducted. Therefore, the appellant is entitled an additional amount of Rs.22,500/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) towards loss of earnings. ``` `8. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal` `awarded only an amount of Rs.500/- towards transport to hospital. I think an additional amount of Rs.500/(Rupees Five Hundred Only) can be allowed for transport to hospital.` `9. Similarly, for extra nourishment, Tribunal` `awarded an amount of Rs.500/-. Considering the facts and circumstances, a further amount of Rs.1,000/(Rupees One Thousand Only) is allowed on that head.` ``` 10. The learned counsel submitted that towards bystander’s expenses, only an amount of Rs.300/- is awarded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioner was in hospital for 30 days. The Tribunal ought have fixed atleast an amount of Rs.150/- per day for 30 days ``` MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 7 ``` in this head. If that is the case the amount will be Rs.4500/- (30x150). The Tribunal already awarded an amount of Rs.300/- and that is to be deducted. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled another amount of Rs.4,200/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Two Hundred Only) for bystander’s expenses. ``` ``` 11. Towards pain and sufferings, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Considering the serious nature of injuries sustained and the period of hospitalisation, I think that an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) can be granted for pain and sufferings. ``` ``` 12. Similarly, for loss of amenities, no amount is awarded by the Tribunal. After hearing both sides, I find that, for loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) can be granted. ``` `13. The enhanced compensation entitled by the` `petitioner can be summarised like this:-` MACA.No.1095 OF 2014 8 ``` HeadAmount Compensation for disabilityRs.98,400/- Loss of earningsRs.22,500/- Transport to HospitalRs. 500/- Loss of amenitiesRs.15,000/- Pain and sufferingsRs.15,000/- Bystanders’ expensesRs.4,200/- Extra nourishmentRs.1,000/- Total Rs.1,56,600/-/ ``` ``` Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified and the appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,56,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand and Six Hundred Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a, from the date of application till realisation. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ``` P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` avs ```