Allowed

Mallika v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Kerala HC9 Oct 2018MACA/679/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accident Claims Appeal allowed to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court re-calculated dependency compensation by increasing notional income and correcting the personal expense deduction, and increased amounts for loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation paid by the Respondent/KSRTCTo the Appellant to the tune of ₹3,55,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition.

Mallika Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 17TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 679 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 212/2003 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 2311-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

1 MALLIKA, MALAYAMKUDY HOUSE, KATTAPAPURAM DESOM,, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KORATTY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SHAMIL M.S.MINOR AGED 17 YEARS

¶10

S/O.LATE SHANMUGHAN, MALAYAMKUDY HOUSE,, KATTAPAPURAM DESOM, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI, VILLAGE, KORATTY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS GUARDIA

¶11

3 SHANIL M.S.MINOR AGED 16 YEARS S/O.LATE SHANMUGHAN, MALAYAMKUDY HOUSE,, KATTAPAPURAM DESOM, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI, VILLAGE, KORATTY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR, DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN-

¶12

4 KAKKARA FO.LATE SHANMUGHAN MALAYAMKUDY HOUSE, KATTAPAPURAM DESOM,, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KORATTY P.O.,, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

5 PARUKUTTY MO.LATE SHANMUGHAN MALAYAMKUDY HOUSE, KATTAPAPURAM DESOM,, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KORATTY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,,

¶17

M.A.C.A.679/2008

¶18

¶19

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

2 ANILAN SO.RAMAN MUTHALANGOTTU HOUSE, THONOORKARA, THELAPPILLY TALUK.

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - KSRTC SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SC KSRTC SRI.JOHN MATHEW SC KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶22

SRI.JOY GEORGE SC K.S.R.T.C.

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.679/2008

JUDGMENT

Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal granting a total sum of 3,00,000/- in respect₹ of the death of an able-bodied youth of 38 years is put to challenge at the instance of the claimants.

¶28

The deceased was a pedestrian, who was knocked down to death by a K.S.R.T.C Bus belonging to the 1^st respondent on 09.02.2003, which led to the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exhibits A1 to A5, including the police records, based on which the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely because

¶29

of the negligence on the part of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C Bus. It is contended by the

¶30

appellants/claimants that the deceased was a mason aged 38 years and that he was having a monthly income of ₹6,000/-. But the Tribunal fixed the notional income only as 2,000/- and adopting a multiplier of 16 and reducing₹

¶31

1/3 towards the personal expenses, dependency compensation was fixed as 2,56,000/-. The amounts₹

¶32

awarded under other heads are in the following terms:

¶33

Compensation for pain and suffering 5,000/-₹

¶34

M.A.C.A.679/2008

¶35

¶36

Loss of consortium 15,000/-₹ - Loss of love and affection 20,000/-₹ - Loss of estate 00 - Funeral expenses 4,000/-

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was maintaining a family consisting of five members including the wife, two minor children and parents. The accident was in the year 2003. Considering the said aspect, this Court is of the view that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not correct and the same requires to be re-fixed as 4,000/- per month.₹ It is ordered accordingly. The deduction towards personal expenses also requires some modification, so far as the deceased was maintaining a family consisting of five members. Under such circumstance, by virtue of the law declined by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma and ors.v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.[2010 (2) KLT 802

¶38

(SC)], deduction should have been only to an extent of ¼^th and not¹ /3^rd .

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as '16' is not correct and it could only be '15'; going by

¶40

M.A.C.A.679/2008 5

¶41

the law declared by the Apex Court. On reworking the compensation as above, the loss of dependency comes to 4000 x 12 x ¾ x 15=5,40,000/-. After deducting the amount of 2,56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the balance₹ payable comes to ₹2,84,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ₹15,000/- towards loss of consortium, which going by the law declined by the Apex Court in National

¶42

Insurance Company Limited.v.Pranay Sethi & ors.[(2017) 5 KHC 350 (SC)] , ought to have been 40,000/-, thus₹ resulting in a deficit of ₹25,000/-, which is awarded accordingly. Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded 20,000/-, even though no separate₹ amount has been awarded towards loss of love and

¶43

affection in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). It has been

¶44

declared by the Apex Court in a subsequent decision that compensation can be awarded in respect of the spouse consortium, parental consortium or filial consortium, as the case may be, and this depends upon various factors, including the love and affection and such other aspects. Taking a cue from the said decision, this Court finds it appropriate to award a further sum of ₹20,000/- towards the 'loss of love and affection' in the instant case as

¶45

M.A.C.A.679/2008 6

¶46

well. Tribunal has awarded only a sum of 4,000/-₹ towards funeral expenses, which requires to be enhanced to 15,000/- and as such, a balance sum of ₹ ₹11,000/- is also payable. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, which requires to be satisfied to an extent of ₹15,000/- as awarded by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra). Thus, the total balance compensation payable comes to ₹3,55,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty five thousand only), which shall be satisfied with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till satisfaction.

¶47

M.A.C.A stands allowed to the said extent.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Mallika v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallika v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew P.A. Vs Shri.P.P.Joy

Chungappalli Velayudhan & Another Vs K.K.Abdul Azeez and Others

Elizabeth Mariya Vs Paul Murickan

Alavi Vs Abdul Razack P.and Another

Saju K Vs M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd.

K.M.Ponni Vs Krishnankutty