High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-10Appeal partly allowed. Enhanced compensation of...

Vijayamma, Sivankutty & Jayakumary v. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) & Madhusoodhanan Nair

Case / Petition Number:MACA 2521 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,82,328 (with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till deposit) to be deposited by KSRTC within two months, before the MACT Attingal. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount after deductions for tax, court fees, etc. No costs awarded.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed. Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,82,328 with 9% interest to KSRTC, deposit within two months; tribunal to disburse after deductions; no costs awarded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijayamma
Sivankutty
Jayakumary

Respondents

The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)
Madhusoodhanan Nair

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.G.RADHAKRISHNAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC
• SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A., SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal is by the legal heirs of the deceased Purushothaman Nair challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal’s award of Rs.3,25,000 for his death in a public road accident involving KSRTC bus KL-15/3711. The Tribunal held KSRTC liable and awarded to the sole dependent claimant (the 1st appellant) but fixed a relatively modest notional income for the deceased (a 48-year-old timber merchant). The appellants relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to argue for a higher notional income, and contended that future prospects should be added at 25% since the deceased was below 50 and self-employed. They also invoked Pranay Sethi for limits on certain heads of compensation. The court re-evaluated the claim, applying the Ramachandrappa framework to calculate a higher monthly income, incorporating a 25% future prospects addition, and applying a 50% deduction for personal expenses, with a multiplier of 13 based on the deceased’s age. This yielded a substantial enhancement of dependency compensation (Rs.7,31,328 before deductions). After accounting for the tribunal’s earlier award and adjustments under Pranay Sethi for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium/love and affection, the court computed an enhanced total of Rs.4,82,328. The appeal was allowed to that extent, with directions for deposit by KSRTC and no costs awarded. The bench consisted of a single judge, Justice Sophy Thomas.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the deceased’s income should be notional higher than the Tribunal’s estimate. Relying on Ramachandrappa, they contended the monthly notional income ought to be Rs.7,500 in 2010, with a 25% addition for future prospects (Rs.9,375), and after a 50% deduction for personal expenses, Rs.4,688 would remain for dependency. With a multiplier of 13 (age 48), dependency comes to Rs.7,31,328. After deducting Rs.2,34,000 already awarded, enhanced dependency becomes Rs.4,97,328. Funeral expenses should be capped at Rs.15,000 (per Pranay Sethi); loss of estate Rs.5,000; loss of consortium/love and affection Rs.40,000. Overall, the tribunal’s total should be enhanced to Rs.4,82,328 after adjusting for excess Rs.20,000 already granted. The appellants seek the enhanced compensation with interest and appropriate disbursement through the Tribunal.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents urged that the Tribunal’s award was just and reasonable and required no modification. They supported deposit of enhanced compensation only to the extent directed by the court and opposed any further enhancement beyond the award already made by the MACT. They also contended that the defence case and evidence did not warrant a different assessment of income or multipliers beyond what was already determined by the Tribunal.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Court relied on Ramachandrappa to fix a higher notional income for the deceased, applying 25% future prospects where appropriate.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Court followed Pranay Sethi principles to cap funeral expenses at Rs.15,000 and to adjust loss of estate and loss of consortium amounts accordingly; used as governing precedent for these heads.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Vijayamma, Sivankutty & Jayakumary v. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) & Madhusoodhanan Nair and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS MONDAY, THE 10[ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946`** ## **`MACA NO. 2521 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OP(MV) NO.375 OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** ## **`1 VIJAYAMMA,`** ``` T.C. 28/1488, KOYITHANATHU KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, NSS KARAYOGAM ROAD, SREEKANTESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ## **`2 SIVANKUTTY,`** ``` T.C. 28/1488, KOYITHANATHU KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, NSS KARAYOGAM ROAD, SREEKANTESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ## **`3 JAYAKUMARY,`** ``` T.C. 28/1488, KOYITHANATHU KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, NSS KARAYOGAM ROAD, SREEKANTESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.G.RADHAKRISHNAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,`** ``` KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` MACA 2521 of 2016 2 ## **`2 MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR,`** ``` S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, AMBIKA VILASOM, PARAPPARA. P.O., VITHURA. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A., SC, KSRTC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 2521 of 2016 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP(MV)No.375 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, who are the legal heirs of deceased Purushothaman Nair, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. On 14.04.2010 at 10.30 a.m., while Mr.Purushothaman Nair was riding a motorcycle through Peroorkada - Nedumangadu public road, KL-15/3711 KSRTC bus, driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle, and he was thrown down causing fatal injuries. He breathed his last on his way to Medical College Hospital. He was a 48 year old man, doing timber business, earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, during the period of accident. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.5,41,000/-, but learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,25,000/- and hence this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the KSRTC bus and 2nd respondent was its driver. The accident and death of MACA 2521 of 2016 4 Sri.Purushothaman Nair, due to the injuries sustained in that accident, are not under dispute. The 1st respondent is admitting ownership of the offending KSRTC bus. 4. On analysing the facts and evidence, learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 2nd respondent an d so, the 1st respondent-owner was found liable to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased. It was further found that, only the 1st claimant was the dependent of the deceased and so she alone was entitled to receive the compensation amount. 5. In the appeal, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through learned Standing Counsel. According to him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and so, it needs no modification. 6. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award, warranting interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, who entered appearance for MACA 2521 of 2016 5 respondents 1 and 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was a 48 year old timber merchant, earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. But learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- and it is on the lower side. He would rely on the decision **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** **[AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , to say that even a coolie worker was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.7,500/- in the year 2010. Relying on that decision, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.7,500/- per month. As he was aged below 50, and self-employed, 25% addition can be given towards future prospects. So his monthly income can be taken as Rs.9,375/- (7,500 + 25%). Since he was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So the balance income would have been Rs.4,688/-. The multiplier applicable is 13 as the deceased was 48 at the time of accident. So the dependency compensation can be assessed as Rs.7,31,328/- (4688x12x13). After deducting Rs.2,34,000/- MACA 2521 of 2016 6 already awarded by the Tribunal, the 1st appellant is entitled to get Rs.4,97,328/- as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 9. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Relying on the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16** **SCC 680]** , the amount eligible was only Rs.15,000/-. So, Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted from the compensation amount. 10. Towards loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Based on **Pranay Sethi’s** case cited _supra_ , the 1st appellant is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- more under the head ‘loss of estate’. 11. Towards loss of consortium, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. But awarded Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. Relying on **Pranay Sethi’s** case cited _supra_ , the 1st appellant-mother is eligible to get only Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Since Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection, MACA 2521 of 2016 7 ## Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted from the compensation amount. |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Amounts deducted in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of dependency|Rs.2,34,000/-|Rs.7,31,328/-||Rs.4,97,328| |Funeral expenses|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.10,000/-|| |Loss of estate|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.15,000/-||Rs.5,000/-| |Loss of consortium/ Loss of love and affection|Rs.50,000/-|Rs.40,000/-|Rs.10,000/-|| |Total|||Rs.20,000/-|Rs.5,02,328/-| |Enhanced compensation is Rs.**4,82,328/-**(5,02,328 - 20,000)||||| |||||| 12. In the result, after deducting Rs.20,000/-, which was awarded in excess, the 1st appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.4,82,328/-. 13. The 1st respondent-Managing Director, KSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.4,82,328/(Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Eight only), with 9% interest per annum, from the date MACA 2521 of 2016 8 of petition till the date of deposit, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, within a period of two months from the date of receipts of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the 1st appellant, after deducting liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit fund etc. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/-