Allowed

Ashitha v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala HC27 Oct 2022MACA/1714/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Claims Appeal where the High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court increased the notional monthly income and reassessed damages under various heads, granting additional compensation with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.6,72,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum; adjustment of specific claim heads.

Ashitha Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc — Insurance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1714 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.02.2014 IN O.P(M.V) NO.1647/2009

¶7

OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P(M.V) NO.1647/2009:

¶9

1 ASHITHA, W/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 45 YEARS VAZHAKAMADATHIL HOUSE, U.C COLLEGE, ALUVA.

¶10

2 SALIM RASHEED, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 23 YEARS VAZHAKAMADATHIL HOUSE, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA

¶11

3 SHAHABAS, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED,AGED 22 YEARS VAZHAKAMADATHIL HOUSE, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA

¶12

4 ALFIA RASHEED, D/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 18 YEARS VAZHAKAMADATHIL HOUSE, U.C COLLEGE, ALUVA

¶13

5 NABEESA, W/O.HAMSA, AGED 64 YEARS VAZHAKAMADATHIL HOUSE, U.C COLLEGE, ALUVA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P(M.V) NO.1647/2009:

¶16

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

2 SRI.THOMAS WILLIAM S/O.ALEXANDER, VARIATH HOUSE, NEAR VISHNUPURAM TEMPLE, CHERANALLOOR, COCHIN - 34. BY ADVS.SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶18

SRI.P.C.CHACKO(K)

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.1714 of 2014

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

 Dated this the 27th day of October, 2022

¶24

This appeal is originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 28.02.2014 in O.P(M.V.) No.1647/2009.

¶25

Appellants are petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

¶26

Original Petition was filed by the petitioners seeking compensation for the death of one Mr.Abdul Rasheed in a motor accident occurred at 11.05 am on 12.10.2009 near Parappuram Mosque, Mannam, North Paravur. The petitioners as legal heirs and dependents of Mr.Abdul Rasheed raised a claim for Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for his death in the motor accident. The Tribunal has arrived at Rs.9,25,373/- as compensation payable and fixed the liability to pay it on the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.1714 of 2014

¶28

¶29

being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation ordered by the Tribunal have approached this Court in the appeal on hand.

¶30

It is contended by Sri.Reji George, the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the deceased claimed to be a businessman earning Rs.15,000/- monthly, evidence was not adduced before the Tribunal to establish those aspects. The Tribunal was constrained to fix the monthly income as Rs.3,500/- on a notional basis and to assess compensation for dependency on its basis. According to the learned counsel, the monthly income ought to have been fixed in proportion to the monthly income fixed in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. Accident in the case on hand being occurred in the year 2009, the learned counsel canvassed for fixation of Rs.7,000/- as the monthly income on a notional basis. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each as compensation under the heads loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. According to him, in view of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] each of the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.44,000/as compensation towards loss of consortium. Under the head

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.1714 of 2014

¶32

¶33

loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- being the compensation stands awarded by the Tribunal and the entitlement of the petitioners being for Rs.16,500/-, they will get Rs.14,000/- as additional compensation. According to him, the death of the victim being occurred after 12 days’ of the motor accident, the petitioners must be given additional compensation under the head pain and suffering.

¶34

It was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioners, the Tribunal is justified in fixing Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income on a notional basis. According to the learned counsel the petitioners are not entitled to get any sum as compensation under the head loss of love and affection in view of Pranay Sethi supra. According to him, the petitioners are also disentitled to get any amount as compensation under the head pain and suffering, since claims of the nature will not survive on the death of the victim. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the entitlement of the petitioners for compensation under the head funeral expenses is Rs.16,500/-, but amount awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.25,000/-, the excess sum is required to be deducted. It is conceded that the

¶35

M.A.C.A.No.1714 of 2014

¶36

¶37

petitioners are entitled to get Rs.16,500/- under the head loss of estate and the Tribunal failed to award so.

¶38

The accident in the case on hand was occurred in the year 2009. The victim of the accident was a businessman claiming to have Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income. But petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to establish their claim. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in fixing the monthly income on a notional basis. But, the sum stands fixed being on the lower side, this Court is inclined to modify it to Rs.7,000/-.

¶39

The deceased being aged 44 years, an addition of 25% to the monthly income is also made in consideration of loss of future prospects and Rs.8,750/- is arrived at. Rs.1,05,000/(Rs.8,750/- x 12) is arrived at as the multiplicand in the above calculation. 14, the multiplier taken by the Tribunal being correct is maintained. Survivors being six in numbers, ¼^th is deducted from the monthly income fixed in consideration of the personal expenditure that would have been met with by him, had he been alive. The compensation for loss of dependency when reassessed on the basis of the monthly income arrived at as above and the multiplier of 14 maintained, Rs.11,02,500/- is

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.1714 of 2014

¶41

¶42

arrived at. Rs.4,41,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal when adjusted, Rs.6,61,500/- will be the additional compensation payable.

¶43

It is noticed that under the head loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal for which the petitioners have no entitlement. Each of the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.44,000/- under the head loss of consortium and therefore, Rs.2,20,000/- is payable in total. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each under the head loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Rs.2,00,000/- stands awarded under the head loss of love and affection and loss of consortium when adjusted in Rs.2,20,000/- now arrived at as payable, Rs.20,000/- is payable in addition. Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation under the head funeral expenses, whereas the petitioners are entitled to get only Rs.16,500/-. Therefore, Rs.8,500/- stands awarded in excess has to be deducted therefrom. Under the head loss of estate, Rs.2,500/was awarded by the Tribunal which when adjusted in Rs.16,500/- actually payable, the petitioners will get Rs.14,000/-. As rightly point out by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, petitioners being the legal heirs are disentitled to

¶44

M.A.C.A.No.1714 of 2014

¶45

¶46

get any sum as compensation for pain and suffering. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- stands awarded by the Tribunal is required to be deducted from the sum arrived at now as additional compensation.

¶47

In the above manner of reassessment and modification of compensation, the petitioners will get Rs.6,72,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventy two thousand only) as additional compensation, which 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 1^st respondent shall deposit the above sum with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum alongwith the original compensation stands awarded by the impugned award with interest fixed (if not already paid), within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of the judgment is received.

¶48

M.A.C.A stands allowed accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶51

NAB

Ashitha v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashitha v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Leela

Prasanthan, Vs Robert Missier & Others

Arattuthodika Moideen Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Mathew Thomas Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sunitha S

Sudheesh Kumar Vs the Manager