Telma P.G. and others v. Selvikumar K.S. and The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA,`** ## **`1943`** ## **`MACA NO. 1815 OF 2012`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 501/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1TELMA P.G., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE BARTHALOMIA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, H.NO.XVIII 2398, THOPPUMPADY P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2BETTINA P.B, AGED 27 YEARS D/O. LATE BARTHALOMIA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, H.NO.XVIII 2398, THOPPUMPADY P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3JINU PAUL P.B., AGED 22 YEARS S/O.LATE BARTHALOMIA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, H.NO.XVIII 2398, THOPPUMPADY P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4P.B. PAPPACHAN, AGED 87 YEARS FATHER OF LATE BARTHALOMIA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, H.NO.XVIII 2398, THOPPUMPADY P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5MAGI, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O. P.B. PAPPACHAN, MOTHER OF LATE BARTHALOMIA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, H.NO.XVIII 2398, THOPPUMPADY P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SMT.T.MANASY ``` 2 ## **`M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SELVIKUMAR K.S., S/O SADANANDAN, KADAMBANATTU, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, SMCI, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688 001. 2THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012 ``` 3 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioners 1 to 5 in O.P.(M.V) NO.501/2008 viz., wife, daughter, father and mother of deceasedBirthalomia, who died in consequence of a motor accident occurred on 09.02.2008,havepreferredthisappeal challenging the award dated 20.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(M.V) No.501/2008. Respondent nos.1 and 2, the driver and KSRTC, are the respondents herein. 2.Brief facts of the case: ``` ``` In a road traffic accident took place on 9.2.2006 Birthalomia, the husband of the 1[st] claimant sustained injuries. According to the appellants KSRTC Bus bearing No.KL-15/3132 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the two wheeler of the deceased while he was riding the two wheeler from west to east along the side of ``` ## **`M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012`** 4 ``` Thoppumpady - Palluruthy road. He succumbed to the injuries after 3 days. Hence the appellants have filed petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 16 lakh. ``` ``` 3.Both the respondents filed written statement admitting the accident and disputing the quantum. ``` ``` 4.The Tribunal marked Exts.A1 to A11 on the side of the appellants. No documents let in by the respondents. Finally, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,38,175/- as against the claim of Rs.16 lakh. ``` ``` 5.The main challenge in this appeal is in the matter of fixation of monthly income by the Tribunal at Rs.3,500/- as against the claim of Rs.12,000/- on asserting that the deceased was doing the work of a driver and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. While canvassing increase in the monthly income, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that ``` ## **`M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012`** 5 ``` the appellants are satisfied by fixing the monthly income following the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236. Though the learned counsel for the KSRTC formally opposed the submission, the same has no substance since inRamachandrappa'scase (supra), Rs.4,500/- was fixed as monthly income of a coolie during 2004, by the Apex Court. in view of the matter, Rs.6,500/- is fixed as monthly income in this case. ``` ``` 6.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants further that 25% addition also to be made following the ratio in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680, since the deceased was aged below 50 years. This aspect is not opposed by the learned counsel for the KSRTC. Therefore, the income for calculating 'loss of dependency' also to be re-fixed and is calculated as; ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012 ``` 6 `6,500+25% = 8,125x12x13x` ¾ `= 9,50,625/Out of which, Rs.4,09,500/- was granted by the Tribunal. Therefore,` **`Rs.5,41,125/-`** `more is entitled by the appellants.` ``` 7.Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the appellants canvassed increase under the conventional heads following the ratio inNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680. At the same time, the learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that amounts granted under the heads of ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘pain and sufferings’ are required to be reduced following the ratio in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others : 2020 (3) KHC 760. ``` ``` 8.On perusing the evidence, it seems that Rs.10,000/- alone was granted under the head ‘loss of consortium’ though the appellants are ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012 ``` 7 ``` entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, Rs.1,90,000/- more is granted under the head ‘loss of consortium’ following the ratio in Pranay Sethi'scase (supra). Coming to other heads, the Tribunal granted 'funeral expenses' at Rs.5,000/- and no amount was granted under the head ‘loss of estate’. It is settled as per the decision inPranay Sethi’scase (Supra)that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- more under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs.15,000/- more under the head 'loss of estate'. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- more is granted under these heads. ``` ``` 9.Following the ratio inUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others : 2020 (3) KHC 760, Rs.25,000/- was granted under the heads ‘pain and sufferings’ and 'loss of love and affection', and the same is reduced. ``` ``` 10.In the result, this appeal is allowed. ``` 8 ## **`M.A.C.A No.1815 of 2012`** ``` It is held that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.12,69,300/- as compensation out of which Rs.5,38,175/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount ofRs.7,31,125/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five Only) is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the Insurance Company from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding the period of 297 days in filing this appeal as ordered in the order dated 28.09.2021 in C.M.Appication No.1/2012. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellants in the proportion within two months from today. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.`** ``` ww ```