Sujatha Rajan & Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC Fort, Thiruvananthapuram & Others

``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 1 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.03.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.860/2009 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA] ``` ## `APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:` - `1 SUJATHA RAJAN W/O.LATE RAJAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM.` - `2 RAHUL RAJ (MINOR) S/O.LATE RAJAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SUJATHA RAJAN, W/O.LATE RAJAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM.` - `3 ROHIT RAJAN (MINOR) S/O.LATE RAJAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SUJATHA RAJAN, W/O.LATE RAJAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM.` - `4 *MADHAVAN S/O.ITTUNDAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM.` - `5 AMMINI MADHAVAN W/O.MADHAVAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV SRI.P.C.HARIDAS` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` - `1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` - `2 K.G.JAYARAJAN S/O.GOPINADHAN NAIR, KAVUMPURATHU HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PULIYANNOOR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM.` - `3 *ADDL. R3 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED : VIJAYAN, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE,` ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 2 ``` PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM - 686146. 4RAJAMMA, D/O. LATE MADHAVAN, ANPU JYOTHI ASHRAMAM HOUSE, KUNDALE PULIYOOR P.O., GINGE VILLUPURAM MAIN ROAD, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU PIN - 605203. 5RADHAMMA THANKAPPAN, D/O. LATE MADHAVAN, KAVUMPURATHU HOUSE, VELLIKULAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686580. [ ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF 4TH APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 IN IA 3/2019 IN MACA 1243/2012.] BY ADVS. R1 BY ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.,SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the petitioners in OP(MV)No.860/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of one Rajan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 15.06.2009. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased, appellants 2 and 3 are the children and appellants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, the 4[th] appellant died, and the legal heirs of the 4[th] appellant were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. 2. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider was hit by the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL-15-4530. According to the appellants, the deceased was conducting a tea shop with a monthly income of Rs.5000/- and was aged 41 years. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- 3. The first respondent filed a written statement admitting the accident but disputing the negligence on the part of the second respondent, the driver of the bus. ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 4 4. The evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A9 from the side of the appellants, and no evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. 5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent in driving the bus and being the employer of the second respondent, the first respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,62,250/- and the first respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard Sri. P.C.Haridas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondentInsurance Company. 7. The primary contest in this appeal is pertaining to the quantum of compensation. It was pointed out that the amount awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency was inadequate. After perusing the records, I find some force in ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 5 the contention, as the monthly income taken by the Tribunal to assess the compensation was only Rs.2000/-.The appellants place reliance upon the Ext.A9 rent deed to substantiate the contention that he was conducting a tea shop. Of course, the said document would indicate the avocation of the deceased, but it does not establish the income derived from the same. No other evidence is also available to prove the same; hence, other means have to be taken into account for determining the same. It is to be noted in this regard that as per the method of computation of monthly income evolved based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** the monthly income of an ordinary employee, even in the absence of evidence, can be fixed as Rs.4500/- for an accident occurred in the year 2004. For determining the monthly income for the subsequent months, an addition of Rs.500/per year is to be made. While adopting the said method, the monthly income would come to Rs.7000/- even though the ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 6 amount claimed by the appellants is Rs.5000/-. Considering the aforesaid aspects, I deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income as Rs.7000/-. It is particularly because in various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Minu Rout & Another v. Satyapradyumna Mohapatra and Others** **[(2013)10 SCC 695]** , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken monthly income more than what is sought in the petition. Therefore, nothing would preclude this Court from taking a higher monthly income than the monthly income claimed, when the materials indicate that the claim was meager. 8. Therefore, the monthly income is fixed as Rs.7,000/- in this case. The deceased was 41 years old at the time of accident and he left behind five dependents. While reassessing the compensation with the monthly income of Rs.7000/- and the other criteria as contemplated in **Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq** cases (supra), the amount to be awarded for loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,02,500/[(7000 + 25%) X 12 X 14 X ¾]. After deducting Rs.2,40,000/already awarded by the Tribunal under the said head, the additional amount receivable by the appellant would come to Rs.8,62,500/-. ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 7 9. Besides the above, Rs.12,000/- is to be awarded under the head of funeral expenses as the amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.3000/- only. Similarly, no amount is seen awarded towards loss of estate; therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted under the said head. Similarly, the amount awarded towards the loss of consortium is only Rs.5000/-. As per the principles laid down in **United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others[(2021) 11 SCC 780],** the appellants, who are the wife, children and parents, are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, the additional amount is fixed as Rs.2,00,000/- and after deducting Rs.5000/- under the said head awarded by the Tribunal, the additional amount would come to Rs.1,95,000/-. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the first respondent would point out that an amount of Rs.7500/- awarded towards pain and suffering was not warranted in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred case, which is accepted. After deducting the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering, the total additional compensation is accordingly fixed as Rs.10,77,000/- ``` MACA NO. 1243 OF 2012 ``` 8 [Rs.8,62,000+12,000+15,000+1,95,000- 7500] 10. In the light of the aforesaid observations and finding, this appeal is allowed, the award dated 19.03.2012 in OP(MV)No.860/2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.10,77,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy seven thousand only). The first respondent is directed to deposit the amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/-** **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A, JUDGE** R.AV