Sindhu Lakshmi & Leela C.C. v. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and Sethumadhavan

M.A.C.A.2831/2015 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **MACA NO. 2831 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 705/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** 1 SINDHU LAKSHMI, AGED 31 YEARS W/O.LATE ABHINESH, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,BHAHMAMANGALAM KARA, CHEMBU VILLAGE,NOW RESIDING AT AMBATTU HOUSE, POOVARANI P.O.POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAMDISTRICT. 2 LEELA C.C.@ LEELAMANI, AGED 63 YEARS W/O.GOPI, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, BHAHMAMANGALAM KARA,CHEMBU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT AMBATTU HOUSE,POOVARANI P.O., POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHILTALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN SRI.BABY THOMAS SMT.BINITHA JAMES ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, PULIYATHOTTUTHODI HOUSE,MANNAGOTTU DESOM, KOPPAM VILLAGE, PALAKKADDISTRICT. 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. M.A.C.A.2831/2015 2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.2831/2015 3 ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.2831 of 2015 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** **1.** The legal heirs of the deceased, who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(M.V.)No.705 of 2010, are the appellants herein. They assail the award dated 22.07.2013. The deceased met with an accident on 09.04.2010 and he passed away on 13.04.2010. He was aged 31 years at the time of death. **2.** Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the second respondent/KSRTC. Perused the records. **3.** The following are the heads under which the learned counsel for the appellants seek enhancement. The first is the monthly income. The deceased was running a jewellery shop at Thalayolaparambu and ## M.A.C.A.2831/2015 4 Rs.13,000/- per month was claimed as his income. Rs.6,000/- alone was reckoned by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, income reckoned is grossly insufficient. Learned counsel for the second respondent/KSRTC submits that, no proof of income was adduced by the claimant and therefore, the award granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. This Court, upon perusal of records, finds that, there is clear reference to the fact that the deceased was running a jewellery shop, going by the FIS and the FIR. PW1 would vouch such facts before the Court. Thus, the fact that the deceased was running a jewellery shop is seen established, although, there is no clear indication as to the income of the deceased. The accident took place in 2010. It is unreasonable to reckon the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- in the year 2010, when the notional income to be reckoned as per the judgment in **Ramachandrappa v.** ## **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** **[2011 KHC 4675]** is Rs.7,500/- per month. Once it is proved that the deceased was running a jewellery shop, M.A.C.A.2831/2015 5 it would be reasonable to reckon the income at Rs.10,000/- per month, as against Rs.13,000/- claimed. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month. **4.** The second head is with respect to the amounts expended in the hospital, as supported by Ext.P15 series of medical bills for a sum of Rs.57,729/-. This has not been reckoned at all by the Tribunal, submits the learned counsel. This Court perused Ext.P15 series of bills and finds that the same has been marked. However, there is no discussion in the judgment as regards the said head. Bills produced are original bills. In the circumstances, the amount covered by the bills, Rs.57,729/-, is liable to be paid to the claimants. **5.** The third head is with respect to loss on account of consortium. The deceased is survived by his wife and mother and they are entitled to Rs.40,000/each, going by the judgment in **National Insurance Co. Ltd.** v. **Pranay Sethi** [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and **Magma** M.A.C.A.2831/2015 6 **General Insurance Company Ltd.** v **. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others** [2018 KHC 6697]. Learned counsel for the second respondent/KSRTC pointed out that the amounts granted towards consortium is on the higher side. Claimants/appellants are only entitled to Rs.80,000/since the deceased is survived by his wife and mother. Rs.1,00,000/- is seen awarded by the learned Tribunal. That apart, Rs.5,000/- is granted towards love and affection. This amount is liable to be adjusted is the submission of the learned counsel for the KSRTC. This Court finds force in the said submission and therefore, amount payable under the head consortium is reduced at Rs.80,000/- as held in **Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.** v. **Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others** [2018 KHC 6697] **.** **6.** Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, loss of estate was fixed at Rs.10,000/- as against the entitled amount of Rs.15,000/-. The said claim is liable to be recognized. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the compensation amount payable to M.A.C.A.2831/2015 7 the appellants/claimants is reworked as follows: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded**<br>**by the**<br>**Tribunal**|**Total amount after**<br>**enhancement in**<br>**appeal**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings||| |2|Transport to Hospital|10,000|10,000| |3|Extra Nourishment|-|| |4|Medical Bills||57,729| |5|Funeral Expenses|25,000|25,000| |6|Bystander Expenses|-|| |7|Pain and Suffering|-|| |8|Loss of dependency|11,52,000|19,20,000<br>[15,000x12x16x2/3]| |9|Loss of estate|10,000|15,000| |10|Loss of Love and<br>Affection|5,000|-| |11|Loss of consortium|1,00,000|80,000| |12|Compensation for the loss<br>of expectancy of life|-|| ||Total|13,02,000|21,07,729| |Amount enhanced = Rs.21,07,729 – Rs.13,02,000 =**Rs.8,05,729/**|||| 8 ## M.A.C.A.2831/2015 **7.** The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 686 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period, as directed in order dated 09.08.2019 in C.M.A.No.3296/2015 in this appeal. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as 9 ## M.A.C.A.2831/2015 directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** Sbna/