Manikuttan K. J. v. The Managing Director, KSRTC, JoshyMon K.K., and Leelamma Philip (MACA No. 1583 of 2012)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944** **MACA NO. 1583 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.09.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.1869/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** **MANIKUTTAN.K.J., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE. K.V. JOSEPH, KURISINGAL HOUSE, 15/2149, STEFFY VILLA, JANATHA ROAD, NAZARETH, MATTANCHERY VILLAGE, MATTANCHERY P.O., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :** - **1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRIVANDRUM-695023.** **2 JOSHYMON.K.K., S/O. KRISHNANUNNI, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, PARAVUR VILLAGE, WARD NO.6, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYAT P.O., ALAPUPZHA-688001.** MACA No.1583 of 2012 ..2.. **3 LEELAMMA PHILIP, W/O.LATE PHILIP DANIEL, CHEMBEZHATH HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD P.O., ALAPUZHA-688001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, KSRTC. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C. ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. R3 BY SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.1583 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **MACA No.1583 of 2012** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal arises out of award dated 12.09.2011 in O.P.(MV)No.1869 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Tribunal. Respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal and the third respondent is the mother of the deceased. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; MACA No.1583 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** In this case, one Maya Manikkuttan died in consequence of the road traffic accident occurred on 05.07.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the second respondent, who had driven the KSRTC bus at the time of accident, when the same hit down the motorcycle where, the above said Maya Manikkuttan was travelling. Accordingly, Rs.8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation before the Tribunal. 4. R1 and R2 filed written statement denying negligence and also disputing quantum. R3, the mother claimed half right over the total amount liable to be awarded, conceding the petition. 5. The Tribunal marked Exts.A1 to A12 on the side of the petitioner. No evidence let in by the respondents. Thereafter, as against claim of MACA No.1583 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.6,41,500/- was granted by the Tribunal in this case along with interest at the rate of 8%. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. as claimed was accepted by the Tribunal. But 40% addition, in the case of the deceased, who was aged 31 years at the time of accident, not taken following the ratio in [2017 16 SCC 650], **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.** This submission is not opposed, since the same is a settled law following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case(Supra). The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is '17'. It is submitted that the proper multiplier is '16' instead of '17'. Therefore, the loss of dependency income is recalculated as under; MACA No.1583 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 6,000+40%=8,400/- 8,400x12x16/2=8,06,400/- Out of which, Rs.6,12,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Rs.8,06,400-6,12,000= **Rs.1,94,400/-** more is granted under the head loss of dependency income. 7. Apart from that, the appellant and the third respondent together are entitled for increase under the conventional heads following the ratio in **Pranay Sethi'** s case(Supra). Therefore, **Rs.7,500/-** more is granted under the head funeral expenses. Towards loss of estate, **Rs.15,000/-** is granted, since no amount is granted by the Tribunal under this head. The appellant and the third respondent together are entitled to get Rs.80,000/- under the head loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/each. Out of which, Rs.5,000/- was granted by the MACA No.1583 of 2012 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Tribunal. The balance amount to the tune of **Rs.75,000/-** (Rs.80,000-5,000) is granted under the head loss of consortium. Similarly, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/ under the head loss of love and affection. The same are impermissible in view of the decision in [AIR 2020 SC 3076], **United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur.** Therefore, Rs.15,000/- stands disallowed. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of **Rs.2,76,900/-** (Rupees Two lakh Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 187 days wherein, grant of interest was MACA No.1583 of 2012 ..8.. specifically disallowed by the order in C.M.Application No.1 of 2012(1885 of 2012) dated 29.11.2021. It is noticed that court fee for Rs.8,00,000/alone was paid by the appellant and he is liable to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,18,400/-. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.1,200/- in the name of M.A.C.T., Ernakulam as additional court fee by a separate cheque and deposit the balance amount in the name of the appellant and the third respondent in the proportion 40% (to the appellant) and 60% (to the third respondent) within two months. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj