The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ansad K.M. and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.12.2020 IN OPMV 831/2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** ## **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI, MALAPPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:** THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, CHAMARAJNAGAR, KARNATAKA STATE-571 313. BY ADV SHEJI P.ABRAHAM ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO.1:** 1 ANSAD.K.M., AGED 34 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMEDALI & HUSBAND OF DECEASED NISHEEDA.N., KUZHIKKADAN HOUSE, KORAMKUNNU, PO KARAKKODU, VAZHIKKADAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 333. 2 AMNA FATHIMA, 8 YEARS (MINOR), D/O.ANSAD.K.M., REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/FATHER ANSAD.K.M., KUZHIKKADAN HOUSE, KARAKKODU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK-679 333. 3 HANEEFA.N., AGED 53 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, NOTTATH HOUSE, POOVATHIPOYIL, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK-679 333 (FATHER OF THE DECEASED NISHEEDA.N.). 4 SHAREEFA.A.V., AGED 48 YEARS W/O.HANEEFA.N., NOTTATH HOUSE, POOVATHIPOYIL, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK-679 333, (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED NISHEEDA.N.). ## **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 2** 5 RAJASHEKHAR ANKALAGI, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.GIRIMALLAPPA, HOUSE NO.253/2, A/P DHULAKED, INDI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA, BIJAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE-586 207 (DRIVER). **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 3** Dated this the 8[th] day of September,2021 ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellant was the 2[nd] respondent in O.P (MV) No.831/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Nisheeda (deceased), the wife of the 1[st] petitioner, the mother of the 2[nd] petitioner and daughter of the petitioners 3 and 4. It was their case that, on 03.05.2018, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 71/C-2566, it **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 4** was hit by a bus bearing registration No.KA 10/F-407 (Bus), which was driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The bus was owned by the 2[nd] respondent. The deceased sustained serious injuries and lost life on the same day. She was a computer operator by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The 1[st] respondent did not contest the proceedings. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the compensation claimed was excessive and unreasonable. 4. The petitioners produced and marked Exhibits ## **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 5** A1 to A8 in evidence. The respondent did not let in any evidence. 5. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by directing the 2[nd] respondent to pay the petitioners an amount of Rs.26,60,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate cost. 6. Aggrieved by the award, the 2[nd] respondent is in appeal. 7. Heard; Sri. Sheji P.Abraham the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent. 8. The principle grounds of challenge in the appeal are:- (i) The petitioners 3 and 4 are not dependants of the deceased, (ii) the 1[st] petitioner was an earning member and hence was not a dependant on the deceased. (iii) the notional income fixed by the Tribunal was on the higher side. ## **Ground No.(i)** **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 6** 9. The petitioners had specifically stated in the claim petition that they were the husband, daughter and parents of the deceased. They were dependant on the deceased. They produced Exhibit A5 Family membership certificate in order to prove their relationship and that they were dependants of the deceased. The respondents did not let in any contra evidence. It is on the basis of above material and the uncontroverted averments on record, that the Tribunal held that the petitioners were the dependants of the deceased. The said finding of the Tribunal cannot said to be erroneous. Hence, I confirm the said finding in favour of the petitioners. ## **Ground No.(ii)** 10. It is an undisputed fact that the 1[st] petitioner was the husband of the deceased. Merely because the 1[st] petitioner was having his own income, it cannot be said that he was not dependant on the deceased. ## **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 7** Dependency does not mean financial dependency. The 1[st] petitioner lost his wife, who was in her prime, therefore, he lost his life partner for the rest of his life. The Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the 1[st] petitiner was dependent on the deceased. Without any contra evidence, the respondents cannot raise the said contention. Therefore, I hold that ground No.(ii) is also untenable. ## **Ground No.(iii)** 11. The petitioners had pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a computer operator and earning a monthly income of Rs.18,000/- per month. 12. The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court in **Ulahannan v. Rajesh and Others** [2020(2) ILR 295] and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** ## **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 8** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 11,500/- per month. 13. Keeping in mind that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and the deceased was a computer operator by profession, I hold that the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.11,500/- is reasonable and just. 14. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the elaborate findings rendered by the Tribunal, that too after a threadbare analysis of the facts and materials on record, I do not find any error or illegality in the compensation awarded at by the Tribunal. 15. The Honourable Supreme Court in **New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kiran Singh & Others** [2004 AIR SCW 4212] has depreciated the practice of insurance companies contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 9** 16. It is to be borne in mind that the accident occurred on 03.05.2018. It is nearly four years since the petitioners have been knocking the doors of the courts seeking compensation. It is trite that the Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion in awarding reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straight jacket formula based on arithmetic exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has judicially exercised its powers based on the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the authoritative precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court while arriving at the impugned conclusion. I do not find any justifiable grounds in the memorandum of appeal warranting admission of the appeal, which would only be a wastage of judicial time and harassment to the respondents. 17. Following the ratio in **Kiran Singh** (supra), I **MACA NO. 2408 OF 2021 10** hold the appeal is devoid of any merits and does not warrant admission. Resultantly, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm