Vasanthy w/o Late Sathyapalan and Others v. Managing Director, KSRTC, Trivandrum and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945 MACA NO. 2711 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1229/2007 DATED 13.09.2020** **OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 VASANTHY W/O. LATE SATHYAPALAN, NALIYATTUTHURUTHIYIL HOSUE, KORATTY SOUTH.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 PREETHA D/O. LATE SATHYAPALAN, DO-DO-** - **3 PRAVEEN** - **S/O. LATE SATHYAPALAN, DO-DO-** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, FORT, TRIVANDRUM KSRTC, FORT, TRIVANDRUM-695023.** - **2 MURALI** - **S/O. CHANDRAN PANACHIKKAL HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O., ALUVA-683101.** - **3 LAKSHMIMUTY AMMA NALIYATTUTHURUTHIYIL HOSUE, KARUKUTTY.P.O., ALUVA-683576.** **BY ADV ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are the claimants in OP(MV) No. 1229/2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation for the unfortunate death of Sathyapalan – who is the husband of the first among them and father of 2 and 3 – caused on account of a road accident on 27.06.2007, when he was walking on a public road, being knocked down by the offending bus driven in a rash and negligent manner. He was taken to a hospital, but succumbed to the injuries; and the appellants thus sought an amount of Rs.6,03,000/-, limited to Rs.3,00,000/towards compensation; but which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal only to a sum of Rs.2,04,000/-. They thus assail the compensation as being inadequate. 3. Sri.Joseph Gopuran – learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently argued that the primary reason why the compensation is fixed low by the Tribunal is because the notional income of the deceased has been taken to be a mere Rs.2,000/-, though he had claimed that he was **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** **3** a 'Manual Labourer', earning Rs.4,500/- per month. He then added that 'Future Prospects' of 10% ought to have been added to the income; but that instead of doing so, the learned Tribunal went on to fix the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ to a very small amount of Rs.1,76,000/-. He then argued that, as per **Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra [(2013) 10 SCC 695],** the Honourable Supreme Court has settled the law that claim of the appellants may not be accurate as regards income and that the Court must take a pragmatic view, taking note of all relevant circumstances. He thus prayed that the notional income as postulated in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** be adopted in this case, along with 10% 'Future Prospects', required as per **National Insurance** ## **Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 6621].** 4. Sri.Joseph Gopuran, thereafter, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘Funeral Expenses' and ‘Loss of Estate’, is inadequate because, **Pranay Sethi** (supra), authorises an amount of Rs.15,000/- under both these heads. He concluded his submissions saying that the compensation awarded by the **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** **4** Tribunal under the head ‘Loss of Consortium’ is so exiguous, that it defies logic because, against an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, which is sanctioned under **Pranay Sethi** (supra), only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. He thus prayed that this appeal be allowed. 5. Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian – learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent – KSRTC, in response, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is without error; and thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 6. I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the evidence on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, with the express consent that it can be acted upon by this Court without dispute. 7. On the adequacy of the notional income adopted by the Tribunal in favour of the deceased, I have no doubt that the figure claimed by the appellants is deserving to be reckoned. I say so because, in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), the notional income to be adopted for a person with unascertainable income, or who was a 'Coolie', in the year 2007 – when the accident occurred - is a minimum of Rs.6,000/-. Even though the appellants had claimed only **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** **5** Rs.4,500/- as the income of the deceased, the ratio in **Minu Rout** (supra) would come to play, because the Honourable Supreme Court has held therein that, when the breadwinner dies, his legal heirs or dependents may not be in a position to discern his actual income; and therefore, that Courts must take a realistic and robust view. I am, therefore of the firm view that, though the appellants have only Rs.4,500/- as the income of the deceased, an amount of Rs.6,000/- becomes eligible as per **Ramachandrappa** (supra). No doubt, to this, 10% will have to be added as 'Future Prospects' because, the deceased was only 52 years of age at the time of the accident and his unfortunate death, as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). 8. The notional income being so found, the question now is what percentile of the same will have to be reduced towards Personal Expenses of the deceased. The appellants are the wife and two children of the deceased; and they assert that all of them were depended upon him financially, since the children were not married at the time of the accident. When these assertions remain uncontroverted by the KSRTC, merely because the daughter was 28 years and the son was 26 years, at the time of accident, it would not **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** **6** automatically lead to an inference that they were not financially depended upon him. I, therefore, confirm the finding of the Tribunal that only one-third of the income can be reduced as personal expenses of the deceased. 9. Further, the appellants are also right in saying that they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each under the heads 'Funeral Expenses' and 'Loss of Estate'; and to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under the head 'Loss of Consortium', since **Pranay Sethi** (supra) sanctions the same also. 10. That said, however, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ will require to be deleted because, in **United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur [2020(3) KHC 760]** , the Honourable Supreme Court has said that the compensation under this head will have to be subsumed in the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. In the afore circumstances, this appeal is allowed in the following manner: a. The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is enhanced to Rs.5,80,800/-, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month, with 10% Future Prospects added to it and an amount **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** equal to one third of it being reduced as his personal expenses. - b. The compensation under the head ‘Funeral Expenses’ is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). - c. The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Estate’ is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). - d. The compensation under the head ‘’Loss of Consortium’ is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-, from Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as per **Pranay Sethi** (supra). - e. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’, is deleted. In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal will remain unaltered. Consequently, the appellants will be at full liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% (reducing the rate of interest of 9% granted by the Tribunal, in view of the escalation granted by this Court), from the date of claim until it is recovered. They will also be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as **M.A.C.A No2711 of 2012** **8** ordered by the Tribunal. In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **==> picture [411 x 32] intentionally omitted <==** **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** lsn