High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-23Enhanced compensation awarded; appeal allowed; ...

Muhammed Rasheed and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC and P.K. Wilson

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2129 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: M. R. Anitha
Judgment Date: 2022-05-23
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,55,500 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, payable within two months. Out of the enhanced amount, Rs.25,000 each to claimants 3 and 4, and the balance equally divided between appellants 1 and 2. Interest for 217 days excluded as previously directed. Disbursement shall follow Circular No.3 of 2019 and Official Memorandum dated 7.11.2019; claimants to furnish bank details within one month of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Enhanced compensation awarded; appeal allowed; payment direction issued with interest and distribution as specified within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Rasheed S/o. Late UMMER Kannur Rawther, Kokkanam Poikayil Veedu, Vayakkal P.O., Valakom Village, Kollam District
Safia Beevi W/o. Muhammed Rasheed, Kokkanam Poikayil Veedu, Vayakkal P.O., Valakom Village, Kollam District
Sajeev M. S/o. Muhammed Rasheed, Kokkanam Poikayil Veedu, Vayakkal P.O., Valakom Village, Kollam District
Binu Rasheed S/o. Muhammed Rasheed, Kokkanam Poikayil Veedu, Vayakkal P.O., Valakom Village, Kollam District

Respondents

Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Chief Office, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001
P. K. Wilson S/o. Kunjuvareeth, Payyappally House, Meloor – 680 311

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Smt. Anchal C. Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P. C. Chacko (Parathanam)
• Adv. Alex Antony Sebastian
• Adv. P.A.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2129 of 2013, heard on 23 May 2022, arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, later interpreted under Section 163A, in a fatal accident involving Shanavas, son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of appellants 3 and 4. The accident occurred on 18 July 1997 when a Jeep (KRK-7176) collided with a KSRTC bus (KL-15/2627). Shanavas succumbed to injuries on 24 July 1997. The appellants sought compensation under the amended 163A regime. The 2nd respondent appeared ex parte; the 1st respondent KSRTC contended the bus driver acted with due care and that the deceased drove rashly and without a valid license. The Tribunal’s approach, using the 163A formula, drew on key precedents. The High Court clarifies that under 163A, fault need not be established; compensation must be computed strictly per the Second Schedule. Relying on Jacob v. Mohammed, Anthoniyamma v. KSRTC, United Insurance Co. v. Madhavan, and National Insurance Co. v. Divakaran, it reaffirmed the structured formula and capped annual income for eligibility. The court recalculates: age 22, monthly income Rs.3,250; for 22–25, the Second Schedule yields Rs.7,20,000; minus 1/3 for living expenses leaves Rs.4,80,000; deducting Tribunal’s award yields Rs.2,65,500; deducting funeral/estate/transport adjustments results in enhanced compensation of Rs.2,55,500, with 6% interest from petition date. The appeal is allowed with directions for payment within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163ASecond Schedule (Motor Vehicles Act)Central Government may amend Second Schedule under Section 163A(3)Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) - meaning of permanent disability

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Court is bound to award compensation strictly as per the Second Schedule (Jacob v. Mohammed)
Under 163A, compensation is fixed by the Second Schedule once age and income are determined (Anthoniyamma v. KSRTC)
In fatal accidents under 163A, the multiplier is irrelevant; compensation is determined by horizontal and vertical entries (United Insurance Co. v. Madhavan)
Only persons with annual income up to Rs. 40,000 can avail benefit of Section 163A (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Divakaran)
No need to plead or establish wrongful act or neglect under 163A(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contend that since the claim falls under Section 163A, the Court must apply the structured Second Schedule-based computation of compensation. They rely on the age of 22 and the income of Rs.3,250, asserting that the Tribunal’s multiplier-based approach is unsuitable under 163A and that compensation should be fixed per the Second Schedule. They seek enhanced quantum within the 163A framework.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that the KSRTC bus driver acted with due care and that the accident occurred due to the deceased’s rash driving and lack of a valid license. They claim the claimed amounts are excessive and contest the application of the 163A structured formula via a multiplier approach previously adopted by the Tribunal.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jacob v. Mohammed	2004 (1) KLT 893	Positive	Held that for claims under Section 163A, compensation must be awarded strictly as per the Second Schedule.
Anthoniyamma and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC	2008 (3) KLJ 507	Positive	Under 163A, if age and income are determined, the compensation is fixed per the Second Schedule.
United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Madhavan	2011 (3) KLT 452	Positive	Division Bench held that in fatal accidents under 163A, multiplier is irrelevant; compensation determined by the relevant horizontal and vertical entries.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Divakaran	2009 (4) KLT 90	Positive	Principle that annual income up to Rs.40,000 falls within eligibility under Section 163A; used to constrain income in the present calculation.

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 Muhammed Rasheed and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC and P.K. Wilson 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 MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **MONDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1944** **MACA NO. 2129 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.12.2012 IN OPMV 311/2005 OF MOTOR** **ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 MUHAMMED RASHEED S/O. LATE UMMER KANNUR RAWTHER, KOKKANAM POIKAYIL VEEDU, VAYAKKAL P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **2 SAFIA BEEVI W/O. MUHAMMED RASHEED, KOKKANAM POIKAYIL VEEDU, VAYAKKAL P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **3 SAJEEV M. S/O. MUHAMMED RASHEED, KOKKANAM POIKAYIL VEEDU, VAYAKKAL P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **4 BINU RASHEED S/O. MUHAMMED RASHEED, KOKKANAM POIKAYIL VEEDU, VAYAKKAL P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 P.K. WILSON S/O. KUNJUVAREETH, PAYYAPPALLY HOUSE, MELOOR - 680 311. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **2** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal has been filed against the award passed in O.P (M.V) No.311/2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur (in short 'Tribunal'). The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was subsequently amended to Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short 'the Act') out of the death of Shanavas (hereinafter be referred as 'deceased'), the son of appellants 1 and 2 and sibling of appellants 3 and 4. It is alleged that the accident was on 18.07.1997, while the deceased was driving a Jeep bearing Registration No.KRK-7176 due to hit by KSRTC super fast bus bearing Registration No.KL-15/2627 (TN-592) driven by 2[nd] respondent. Immediately after the accident, deceased was taken to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Kottarakkara. From there, he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 24.07.1997. A total M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **3** compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- has been claimed. 2. Before the Tribunal, 2[nd] respondent remained ex parte. 1[St] respondent filed written statement contending that on 18.07.1997, the K.S.R.T.C bus bearing Registration No.KL15/2627 (TM-529) was operated by a well experienced driver. He was driving the vehicle with due care and caution, following all traffic rules and regulations. The Jeep bearing Registration No.KRK-7176 driven by the deceased in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules, invited the accident. He was not possessing any valid driving license to drive the Jeep. It is further contended that amount claimed under various heads are excessive and exorbitant. 3. PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A6 marked from the side of the appellants. There was no evidence from the side of respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 5. Since claim is under Section 163 A of the Act, the question of negligence does not arise. It is relevant in this M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **4** context to quote Section 163 A of the Act which reads as follows; _“163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be._ _Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)._ _(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person._ _(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification_ M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **5** _in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.”_ ## 6. In **Jacob v. Mohammed [2004 (1) KLT 893]** , it has been held that when claims are filed under Section 163A of the Act, the Court is bound to award compensation strictly as per the structural formula in the Second Schedule of the Act. In **Anthoniyamma and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC** **[2008 (3) KLJ 507]** , it has been held that under 163A, if age and income at the time of accident is determined, the compensation is fixed in the case of fatal accidents as mentioned in the Second Schedule. In **United Insurance Company v. Madhavan [2011 (3) KLT 452]** a Division Bench of this court held that in respect of compensation payable for fatal accidents in a claim under Section 163A, the multiplier shown against each entry of table/chart is irrelevant. So in fatal accidents the amount payable as compensation will have to be ascertained by ascertaining the relevant horizontal entry and the relevant column in the table/chart. 7. So adoption of multiplier method by the Tribunal is M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **6** wrong and compensation so arrived at has to be modified. ## 8. **National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Divakaran [2009** **(4) KLT 90]** would lay down the principle that only persons with an annual income up to Rs.40,000/- can avail benefit of Section 163A. Probably in consonance with that, though claimant originally claimed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-, it has been subsequently amended as Rs.3,250/per month. So it will be within Rs.40,000/- prescribed under second schedule of the Act. 9. In the present case, next question is with regard to the fixation of compensation as per structured formula. Deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. Monthly income claimed is Rs.3,250/-. 10. Compensation as per structured formula for the age group of 22-25 is Rs.7,20,000/- for the income group of 40,000/-. From that, 1/3 has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Hence towards dependency, appellants are entitled to get Rs.4,80,000/- (7,20,000-2,40,000). Deducting the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, the M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **7** balance would be **Rs.2,65,500/-** (4,80,000-2,14,500). Once a structured formula is followed, general damages is also to be awarded as per Clause 3 of 2nd Schedule. So, Rs.2,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate alone can be awarded. Appellants are not entitled to get any amount towards consortium since the deceased was the son of the appellants 1 and 2 and brother of the other appellants. Rs.2,500/- awarded towards transportation charges has to be deducted. Towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/awarded has to be deducted and towards loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- has to be deducted. In total Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as per structured formula. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of **Rs.2,55,500/-** (Rs.2,65,500 - Rs.10,000). 11. In the result, appellants are allowed to realize enhanced compensation of **Rs.2,55,500/-** (Two lakhs fifty five thousand five hundred only) in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **8** till realization. 1[St] respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced amount Rs.25,000/- each shall be awarded to claimants 3 and 4 and balance amount shall be apportioned equally among the appellants/claimants 1 and 2. 12. The appeal has been filed with a petition to condone delay of 217 days. While condoning the delay by order dated 22.12.2021 in CM.Appl.No.1/2013 (CMA.No.2129/2013), it was made clear that, in case any enhancement of compensation is granted, the claimants will not be entitled to claim interest for the above said period. Hence, interest for the period of 217 days is excluded. The disbursement of additional compensation to the appellants/claimants shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issues by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 6.9.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 7.11.2019. M.A.C.A No. 2129 of 2013 **9** Appellants/claimants shall provide their Bank Account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. **SD/M.R.ANITHA JUDGE** rps/