Mary Joseph & Others v. Mohandas P P & The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 5TH MAGHA, 1945 MACA NO. 1308 OF 2013 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1312/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1MARY JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, 2BENNY JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, 3JOMY JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, 4MERCY JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, 5SOJAN JOSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH. 6LEENA JOSEPH, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, ALL RESIDING AT PAITTIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KAKKADAM POYIL,KOODARANHI,KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRINCY XAVIER P SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1MOHANDAS P P, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN NAIR,THEKKUVEETIL(H), THAZEKKODE AMSOM KACHERI DESOM, MUKKAM.P.O,KOZHIKODE. 2THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADV ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. ``` ## **`THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR`** ``` ADMISSION ON 25.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 2 : ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners in OP(MV) No.1312/2009 on the files of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. 2. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of one Shaji Joseph, due to the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 31.12.2007. According to them, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by a KSRTC bus driven by the 1[st] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent is the Managing Director of KSRTC, the owner of the bus. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident. He was the son of the 1[st] appellant and the brother of the appellants 2 to 6. According to them, the deceased was working as an Area Co-ordinator in Centre for Overall Development, Thamarassery’ with a monthly income of Rs.6,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The respondents filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the said bus. However, they denied negligence on the M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 3 : part of the 1[st] respondent, and they also disputed the quantum of compensation. To substantiate the contentions, the appellants produced and marked Exts.A1 to A14. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent and being the employer of the 1[st] respondent, the liability to pay the compensation was imposed upon the 2[nd] respondent. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.1,74,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the with interest @ 7% per annum date of petition till deposit. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard Sri.V.S. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian P.A., learned counsel, appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 5. The only question to be considered is whether any enhancement of compensation, as sought in the appeal, is to be granted. On going through the records, I find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre. The Tribunal accepted the monthly income as Rs.2,500/-, which was inadequate. Besides the M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 4 : same, no addition was made towards future prospects and the multiplier taken was that of the age of mother of the deceased. The assessment of compensation in the above manner was not at all proper in the light of various decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court. Regarding the monthly income, the amount of Rs.2,500/- for the year 2007 appears to be very meagre. Even though the Ext.A10 certificate issued by the Director, Centre for Overall Development, Thamarassery, was relied on to show that he was working as the Area Co-ordinator, there is nothing to show the salary he was being paid at the relevant time. Therefore, the monthly income has to be fixed by adopting the method of computation, evolved from the principles laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** as per which the same has to be fixed as Rs.6,000/- in view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2007. Since the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Similarly, as he died as a bachelor, for personal expenses, a deduction of M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 5 : 50% also has to be made. Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the above criteria, the amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,06,400/- [(6000 + 40%) x 12 x 16 x ½)]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.1,35,000/- and thus the additional compensation would come to Rs.6,71,400/-. 6. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.3,000/towards funeral expenses and in the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680],** a further sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded. No amount is seen granted towards loss of estate, hence Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the said head. In addition to the above, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to the 1[st] appellant being the mother of the deceased as loss of consortium. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. It was held in **United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and other [ 2020 (3) KHC 760]** that when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, no further amount needs to be grated for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the said amount of Rs 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 6 : affection, is adjusted, towards the compensation for loss of consortium. This would result in an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further points out that this is a case in which even though the deceased sustained injuries on 31.12.2007, he died on 06.01.2009, after a prolonged treatment. According to him, he was completely bedridden until he died on 06.01.2009. Upon careful scrutiny of the medical records, the said contention appears to be justified. The fact that he was completely bedridden is evident from the records. The period of hospitalisation was 91 days and even thereafter, he was under the care of the other persons. In such circumstances, the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering appears to be on the lower side. Accordingly, a further sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the said head. 7. Another aspect to be noticed in this case is that even though the deceased was completely bedridden, no compensation for bystander expense is seen granted. As it is discernible that he was completely bedridden, the appellants must have incurred expenses for taking care of him by staying with him, or some M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 7 : among them must have spent considerable time along with him to attend to the deceased. In **Kajal v. Jagdish chand [2020 ACJ 1042]** , the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to assess the compensation for future bystander expenses at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for one bystander. Therefore, I am of the view that the same can be applied in this case as well. As the deceased was bedridden for a period of one year, an amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded under the said head. Thus, the total additional compensation comes to Rs.8,08,400/- [671400+12000+15000+ 30000+20000+60000]. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(M.V.) No.1312/2009 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.8,08,400/- (Rupees eight lakh eight thousand and four hundred only). The said amount shall be deposited by the 2[nd] respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that as the appeal was filed with a delay of 952 days, the 2[nd] respondent shall be at liberty to exclude the said M.A.C.A. No.1308/2013 : 8 : period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN card, Aadhar card and bank details to enable the 2[nd] respondent to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of two months 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 2[nd] respondent to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. **Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** ncd/scs