The High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation award by recalculating dependency loss and adding amounts for loss of estate, consortium, and pain and suffering.
Additional compensation of Rs. 8,20,000/- awarded to be paid within three months with interest at 7.5% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940
MACA.No. 891 of 2009
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 8/2003 of D.C. & SESIONS & MACT,KALPETTA DATED 12-11-2008
APPELLANT/S:
BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
M.A.C.A.891/2009
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 Y.SEEMAPPA, S/O.YARAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, DRIVER, K.S.R.T.C, BADGE NO.15696,, SREENIVASAPURA DEPOT, SREENIVASAPURA P.O., KOLAR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOLATHOOR VILLAGE, YELDOR P.O., KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE, (DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA-07F-443)
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.891/2009
3
J UDGMENT
Appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle is already before this Court. The 1st respondent is the driver, to whom the service is not complete in the appeal
but the fact remains that he was already served before the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal was condoned, that apart, since the liability is upon the 2nd respondent Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The presence of the 1st respondent is not necessary and hence notice is dispensed with. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent accordingly.
the bus belonging to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent. The bus dashed against the car, causing fatal injuries leading to the death of the deceased. This led to the claim petition preferred by the mother of the deceased, joining hands with the widow and children. The 1st respondent driver of the bus chose to remain ex
M.A.C.A.891/2009
4
parte. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, son of the deceased and documentary evidence produced as Exts.A1 to A17, while no evidence was adduced from the part of the 2nd respondent.
partner of two hospitals and is also a planter; by virtue of which he was having a monthly income of 40,000/-.₹ Observing that the tax returns produced were of the year 1994-1995 and that no documents were produced in respect of the year 2002-2003 and further that no evidence was adduced regarding the income claimed as a 'planter', the Tribunal, based on Ext.A5 partnership deed referring to a monthly salary of 4,000/-, decided to fix the same as₹ ₹5,000/- for working out the dependency compensation. Adopting a multiplier of '13' a sum of 5,20,000/- was₹
awarded towards loss of dependency, after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses. A sum of 30,000/- was₹
awarded towards loss of love and affection and a sum of ₹3,000/- as funeral expenses, besides 1,000/- towards₹
transportation to the hospital. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amounts awarded by the
M.A.C.A.891/2009
5
Tribunal are totally inadequate in all respects and that several other permissible heads have not been taken into consideration.
appellant was having a much higher income at least to sustain 'seven members' of the family. This being the position, the notional monthly income reckoned by the
M.A.C.A.891/2009
6
Tribunal as 5,000/-, despite the available materials is₹ not correct and this Court finds it appropriate to have it re-fixed as 10,000/- per month; also considering the₹ future prospects.
particularly in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], in a case were the
dependants are more than 6, 1/5 alone can be deducted
towards the personal expenses and the rest has to be taken as the contribution to the family. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to 10000 x 12 x 4/5 x 13 = 12,48,000/-. After giving credit to 5,20,000/- awarded₹
by the Tribunal, the balance payable comes to ₹7,28,000/-. Only a sum of 30,000/- was awarded towards₹ love and affection, where there is a deficit of ₹10,000/- in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court on the
point. Similar is the position with regard to 'funeral expenses', where only a sum of 3,000/- has been awarded,₹ which requires to be enhanced by ₹12,000/-. It is ordered
accordingly. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal
towards pain and sufferings. This Court is of the view
M.A.C.A.891/2009
7
that the appellants are entitled to get ₹15,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has omitted to award compensation towards loss of consortium to the 2nd appellant/2nd claimant, who is entitled to ₹40,000/-; by virtue of
Pranay Sethi's case (supra) it is awarded accordingly. Similarly, the appellants are also entitled to get a sum of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total additional compensation payable comes to ₹8,20,000/(Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand only), which requires to be satisfied with with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till satisfaction. The 2nd respondent is required to satisfy the said amount at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
DG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for death in a motor accident should be enhanced.
Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport CorporationApplied¶49
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]
Pranay SethiApplied¶59
Pranay Sethi's case
Assiya Hajjamma and others
Y. Seemappa
The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
