Allowed

Mariyamma Abraham v. Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C.

Kerala HC15 Nov 2022CO/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a cross objection against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It held that Rs.39,92,000/- of additional compensation with 7.5% per annum interest is payable to the petitioners for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and bereavement.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional compensation of Rs.39,92,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the original petition.

Mariyamma Abraham Vs Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2156 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.07.2010 O.P(M.V) NO.957/2007 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶9

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRASNPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIURVANNATHAPURAM- 695 023.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

1 MARIYAMMA ABRAHAM

¶13

W/O.ABRAHAM, PANAMKUZHACKAL VELLAIPARAMBIL,

¶14

RUBY NAGAR P.O, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY- 686 013.

¶15

2 JOSE ABRAHAM,

¶16

S/O.ABRAHAM -DO- -DO-

¶17

3 SHINY ABRAHAM,

¶18

D/O.ABRAHAM. -DO- -DO-

¶19

4 WINCY ABRAHAM

¶20

D/O ABRAHAM. -DO- -DO-

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶22

 SMT.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶24

ON 15.11.2022, ALONG WITH CO.5/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

C.O.No.05 of 2022

¶26

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.2156 of 2011 &

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶31

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶32

CO NO. 5 OF 2022

¶33

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.07.2010 IN O.P(M.V) NO.957/2007
OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶34

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3 & 4/PETITIONERS 1,3 &4 :

¶35

1 MARIYAMMA ABRAHAM W/O. ABRAHAM, PANAMKUZHACKAL, VELLAIPARAMBIL, RUBY NAGAR P.O, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY - 686 103

¶36

2 SHINY ABRAHAM, D/O. ABRAHAM, PANAMKUZHACKAL, VELLAIPARAMBIL, RUBY NAGAR P.O, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY - 686 103

¶37

3 WINCY ABRAHAM, D/O. ABRAHAM, PANAMKUZHACKAL, VELLAIPARAMBIL, RUBY NAGAR P.O, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY 686 103 BY ADV. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶38

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT & 2ND

¶39

PETITIONER:

¶40

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023

¶41

2 JOSE ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, PANAMKUZHACKAL, VELLAIPARAMBIL, RUBY NAGAR P.O, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY 686 103

¶42

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
 SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶43

THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY

¶44

HEARD ON 15.11.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.2156/2011, THE COURT ON

¶45

THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

M.A.C.A.No.2156 of 2011 &
C.O.No.05 of 2022

¶47

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

Dated this the 15th day of November, 2022

¶50

The appeal and the Cross Objection on hand were filed against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 12.07.2010 in O.P(M.V.) No.957/2007. The appellant in the appeal is the Managing Director of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and the Cross Objectors are the petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience the parties to the appeal and Cross Objection will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondent No.1 in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.

¶51

The contention of K.S.R.T.C in the appeal on hand was that the monthly income for the purpose of computation of compensation was fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.60,000/- and it is on the higher side. It is contended by the learned counsel that in Ext.A9, the annual salary of the deceased is certified as

¶52

M.A.C.A.No.2156 of 2011 &
C.O.No.05 of 2022

¶53

¶54

Rs.5,95,425/- and when the monthly sum received by him is assessed, it will be a lesser sum than Rs.60,000/- and the Tribunal is erred in fixing Rs.60,000/-. The learned counsel canvassed for interference with the compensation stands awarded on it’s basis. No other contentions have been put forth by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended on their behalf that the Tribunal went wrong in adopting ‘6’ as the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased. According to him, the age of the deceased ought to have been considered by the Tribunal for arriving at the compensation. It is pointed out that the age of the deceased at the relevant time of his death was proved as 29 years and therefore the multiplier liable to be adopted was 17. The learned counsel canvassed for re-assessment of compensation for loss of dependency by substituting 17 in the place of 6. The further contention raised was that Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/respectively stands awarded by the Tribunal under the heads, loss of estate and funeral expenses are less than Rs.15,000/-

¶56

M.A.C.A.No.2156 of 2011 &
C.O.No.05 of 2022

¶57

¶58

liable to be granted under each heads and therefore,

¶59

interference is highly warranted to re-fix the compensation.

¶60

It is further contended by the learned counsel that

¶61

the compensation was granted by the Tribunal under the head bystander expenses, transportation expenses and pain and suffering, on the lower side. A further contention was also advanced that though the deceased was survived by his mother, compensation was not awarded under the head loss of consortium.

¶62

It is noticed from the impugned award that the monthly income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.60,000/based on cogent materials brought in evidence by the petitioners and it being proper, this Court is declined to interfere with. It is noticed that under the head loss of estate

¶63

and funeral expenses the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- each. Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively being the sums stands awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/- additionally.

¶64

M.A.C.A.No.2156 of 2011 &
C.O.No.05 of 2022

¶65

¶66

The deceased was survived by his mother, brother and two sisters. Rs.15,000/- each stands awarded by the Tribunal under the heads, pain and suffering and loss of love and affection. It is now settled by the Apex Court that the legal heirs of a person who died in a motor accident are not entitled to get compensation for pain and suffering. It has been held that the parents, spouse and children are entitled to get consortium, namely filial, spousal and parental respectively but siblings are not. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner being the mother is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium.

¶67

The deceased being a bachelor, half of the monthly income needs to be deducted in consideration of the personal expenditure, the deceased would have met, had he been alive. When calculated with multiplier substituted as 17, the compensation payable to the petitioners would come to Rs.61,20,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 12 x 17). The sum stands awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.21,60,000/-, the petitioners will get Rs.39,60,000/- as additional compensation under the

¶68

head loss of dependency. Thus a total sum of Rs.39,92,000/-

¶69

M.A.C.A.No.2156 of 2011 &
C.O.No.05 of 2022

¶70

¶71

(Rupees Thirty nine Lakhs Ninety two Thousand only) (Rs.39,60,000/- + Rs.12,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.40,000/- - Rs.30,000/-) is payable additionally and the said sum will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. The appellant in M.A.C.A No.2156/2011 is directed to deposit the sum stands

¶72

arrived at as additional compensation with interest fixed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶73

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.2156/2011 that the amount stands awarded by the Tribunal is already paid. In the above circumstances, the additional compensation and interest fixed on it alone shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶74

M.A.C.A stands dismissed and Cross Objection stands allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

NAB

Mariyamma Abraham v. Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma Abraham v. Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuroop M Vs Ahammedkutty K T

Mohandas Vs Sreedharan Nair

Martin @ Marshal Bestin Vs Rajesh

Clement Vs Sarath Mohan

Managing Director,K.S.R.T.C. Vs Mariyamma Abraham and Others

Aneesh Vs K.v.Chandran