High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-07Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation; ...

Vilasini and others v. Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO.2261 OF 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The High Court enhanced compensation as detailed in the table, increasing total from Rs. 4,94,250 to Rs. 7,99,250, and then ordered an additional enhancement of Rs. 3,05,000 with 7.5% interest from the petition date until realisation and costs. The KSRTC is to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within 60 days, with disbursement in the ratio 50:25:25 to the appellants upon deposit, and in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation; deposit before Tribunal; distribution to appellants as per ratios; payment of costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vilasini (W/o Soman Pillai)
Ajeesh (S/o Soman Pillai)
Aneesh (S/o Soman Pillai)

Respondents

Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. V. Baby
• A. N. Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

• Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SC, KSRTC
• P. C. Chacko (Parathanam)
• Alex Antony Sebastian P.A.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) filed by Vilasini and two other dependants challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta’s judgment under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, awarding compensation for the death of Soman Pillai, a fish vendor. The deceased was killed following a collision with a KSRTC bus on 17 July 2004; his dependants sought compensation of Rs. 8,28,500/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,94,250 with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs, and held KSRTC liable. The appellants contended that the deceased’s income was higher (claimed Rs. 6,000 per month) and challenged the quantum, urging that proper application of Supreme Court precedents would yield a higher award. The respondent KSRTC admitted ownership but argued negligence lay with the deceased and that the award was excessive. The High Court, after considering the pleadings and extant evidence (Exts. A1–A15) and relying on established precedents (Ramachandrappa; Sarla Verma; Pranay Sethi; New India Assurance), reassessed the compensation. Noting the deceased’s age (48) and applying a 13 multiplier with 25% future prospects and a 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses, the Court increased the dependency loss to Rs. 5,85,000 and adjusted conventional heads, including loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The result was an enhanced total of Rs. 7,99,250, with further enhancement of Rs. 3,05,000, plus interest and costs, and directions for deposit and distribution by the Tribunal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236)
Multiplier and dependency deduction (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121)
Future prospects for compensation (Pranay Sethi v.-National Insurance Co. (2017) 16 SCC 680)
Avoid duplication of compensation (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argue that the deceased, a fish vendor, earned Rs.6,000 per month. The Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.3,000 (and, later, Rs.4,500) as notional income misstates the prospective loss. They contend the headwise compensation should reflect higher income, appropriate multiplier, and future prospects, with proper deduction for personal living expenses. They challenge the Tribunal’s quantum, urging computation per established precedents (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi) for a fair award.

Contentions of Respondents

The KSRTC defends the Tribunal’s findings, asserting that the accident was partly attributable to the deceased’s conduct and that the claimed quantum is excessive. It emphasizes liability on the owner/driver and objects to enhanced compensation, arguing the Petitions should be dismissed or reduced to reflect reasonable compensation aligned with evidence and legal standards.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Applied to fix the notional monthly income at Rs.4,500 for the year 2004.
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Used to determine the multiplier (13) and the deduction of one-third for personal living expenses.
National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for future prospects and the approach to conventional heads, aligning with 25% future prospects in this case.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati & Ors.	(2020) 9 SCC 644	Positive	Cited to avoid duplication of compensation; loss of love and affection removed where loss of consortium exists.

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 Vilasini and others v. Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram 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 MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.(MV) NO.1006/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 VILASINI, W/O SOMAN PILLAI, ANEESH BHAVAN, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KARUMPAKARA P.O., PATHANAPURAM. 2 AJEESH, S/O. SOMAN PILLAI, -DO- -DO3 ANEESH, S/O SOMAN PILLAI, -DO- -DO-** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants were the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1006/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The respondent in the appeal was the respondent before the Tribunal. 2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Soman Pillai (deceased), the husband of the first appellant and the father of the appellants 2 and 3. It was their case that, on 17.07.2004, while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing registration No. KL-02/H-7495 from Elamannoor to Kurumbakkara, when he reached near the Electricity office, a bus bearing registration No.KL-15/5126(bus), owned by the respondent and driven by its employee in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was taken to the Mariya Hospital, Adoor. Although, he was treated as an inpatient for a period of six days, he ## **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -3- lost his life on 23.07.2004. The deceased was a fish vendor by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The appellants were dependents of the deceased. Hence, the appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.8,28,500/- from the respondent. 3. The respondent had filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the bus. However, the respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Similarly, the respondent contended that the compensation claimed under the different heads was exorbitant. Hence, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The appellants produced and marked Exts.A1 to A15 in evidence. The respondent did not produce any evidence. 5. The Tribunal, after analyzing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellants to recover from the respondent an amount of Rs.4,94,250/- with interest @ 7.5% per **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -4- annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and a cost of Rs.9,000/-. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal. 7. Heard; Sri. A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri.Alex Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just. ## **Negligence and liability.** 9. Exhibit A6 final report filed by the Adoor Police in Crime No.514 of 2004 proves the fact that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Admittedly, the respondent was the owner of the bus. The respondent has not let in any evidence to discredit Ext.A6 final report. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -5- ## compensation amount to the appellants. ## **Income of the deceased.** 10. The appellants had claimed that the deceased was a fish vendor by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. 11. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month. 12. Following the yardstick in the aforecited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004, I fix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. ## **Multiplier.** 13. The deceased was aged 48 years at the time of ## **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -6- the accident/death. In the light of the law laid down in _**Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121],**_ the relevant multiplier to be adopted is '13'. ## **Dependants of the deceased.** 14. It is proved that the appellants are the wife and children of the deceased. They are three in number. Going by the law laid down in **Sarla Verma** (supra) and _**National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680**_ ], 1/3[rd] of the compensation has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. ## **Future prospects.** 15. Following the ratio in **Sarla Verma** and **Pranay Sethi** (supra) and considering the fact that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident/death, the appellants are entitled to 25% towards future prospects. ## **Loss due to dependency** 16. Taking into account the above mentioned **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -7- factors namely, the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, the multiplier at '13', future prospects at 25% and deducting 1/3[rd] of the total compensation towards personal living expenses of the deceased, I re-fix the compensation for loss of dependency at Rs.5,85,000/instead of Rs.3,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ## **Conventional heads of compensation.** 17. In clause (viii) of paragraph 61 of **Pranay Sethi** (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads, namely, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- each, respectively. 18. In the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards 'funeral expenses', Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/towards 'loss of consortium' to the first appellant. In view of the law laid down in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), I enhance the compensation under the head 'funeral expenses' by **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -8- an amount of Rs.5,000/- and award the appellants an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', totalling to an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ## **Loss of love and affection** 19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection'. 20. In **New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Somwati & Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 644** ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if any amount is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium', no amount shall be awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection', as it would amount to duplication of compensation. Hence, I set aside the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection'. 21. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation. 22. On a comprehensive re-appreciation of the **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -9- pleadings and materials on record and the law referred to in the aforecited decisions, I hold that the appellants/petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given under the table for easy reference. |**Sl.** **No**|**Head of claim**|**Amount awarded by** **the Tribunal(Rs.)**|**Amount** **modified** **and** **recalculated by** **this Court (Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Transport to hospital|1,000/-|1,000/-| |2.|Extra nourishment|1,000/-|1,000/-| |3.|Medical expenses|60,650/-|60,650/-| |4|Bystander expenses|600/-|600/-| |5|Funeral expenses|10,000/-|15,000/-| |6|Damage to clothing|1,000/-|1,000/-| |7|Loss of love and affection|30,000/-|-| |8|Loss of dependency|3,60,000/-|5,85,000/-| |9|Loss of estate|15,000/-|15,000/-| |10|Loss of consortium|15,000/-|1,20,000/-| ||**Total**|**4,94,250/-**|**7,99,250/-**| In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by **MACA NO.2261 OF 2012** -10- enhancing the compensation, by a further amount of Rs.3,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate cost. The respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal, within sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced deposited amount to the appellants in the ratio of 50:25:25, and in accordance with law. Sd/- **C.S. DIAS JUDGE** bpr