Allowed

Vidhuran Yooda Thadevoos v. the Kerala State Transport Corporation

Kerala HC7 Nov 2022MACA/577/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal against an award of the Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation by modifying the monthly income figure and increasing various heads of damages including transportation, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while rejecting claims for future treatment due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.30,900/- awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum; total compensation includes enhanced amounts across various heads.

Vidhuran Yooda Thadevoos Vs the Kerala State Transport… — 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

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 577 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.10.2013 IN OP(MV)NO.1652/2004 OF ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYM.

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

VIDHURAN YOODA THADEVOOS,
AGED 32,
S/O JOHN K.V., KUNNUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
POOTHAKUZHY P.O., PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANILAL
 SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PIN-695001

¶12

2SHAJI,
AGED ABOUT 53,
S/O RAVINDRAN VAIDYAN, MANKUZHYIL HOUSE, KOSACHITHAZHE,
KONTHATHOODU KARA, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, PIN - 686 509.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A., STANDING COUNSEL,
 KSRTC

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2022

¶19

The appeal on hand is filed against an award passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 17.10.2013 in OP (MV)No.1652/2004. The appellant is the petitioner before the Tribunal.

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner’s claim was that while some passengers are getting down from a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL-15-2996 at Manthuruthy bus stop at about 7.35 a.m on 27.12.2002, due to the rash and negligent moving of it ahead by its driver, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. According to him, he was rushed to M.G.D.M Hospital, Kangazha and thereafter to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for treatment. Rs.92,000/- was

¶22

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶23

¶24

awarded as compensation. The Managing Director of KSRTC

¶25

and its driver were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition.

¶26

1^st respondent remained exparte in the

¶27

proceedings before the Tribunal. 2^nd respondent had filed two written statements raising common contentions. The contentions were that, the description of the accident in the Original Petition is incorrect, that he was not rash and negligent in driving the KSRTC Bus, that the motor accident in question was occurred due to the carelessness of the petitioner who stood at the steps neglecting the direction of the Conductor , that he was solely responsible for the accident and that the averment with respect to age, occupation, monthly income, nature of injuries sustained and the procedures of treatment availed are false. Compensation claimed is disputed for its exorbitant nature.

¶28

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself tendered evidence as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs2 and 3. Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.X1 were marked.

¶29

The respondents marked Exts.B1 and B2.

¶30

¶31

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶32

Based on the evidence adduced as above, the Tribunal fixed liability upon the 2^nd respondent for causing the motor accident by his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal also arrived at Rs.92,000/- as the compensation payable to the petitioner and directed the 1^st respondent to deposit the same with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation alongwith proportionate cost. The appeal on hand is filed seeking for modification of compensation stands awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

It is contended by Sri.S.Nidheesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the monthly income of the petitioner was fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- on a notional basis and compensation was calculated. According to him, the petitioner as PW1 categorically deposed while in the witness box that he was a Mechanic and earning Rs.5,000/- as monthly income. According to him, PW3, his employer, who issued Ext.A10 salary certificate was also examined. PW3 deposed that he is the owner of ‘Prasanna Engineering Works’ and the petitioner has been working as a

¶34

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶35

¶36

mechanic in the above workshop from 2000 onwards and was given Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the Tribunal failed to award just and reasonable compensation under various other heads also.

¶37

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has contended on the contrary that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the assessment was based on a consideration of the entire evidence on record. According to him, interference is totally unwarranted.

¶38

Going by the impugned award, it is noticed that the petitioner tendered oral evidence as PW1. According to him, he was working as Mechanic in a workshop owned by PW3 and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner also examined his employer. According to PW3, the workshop, namely ‘Prasanna Engineering Works’ belongs to him and the petitioner was working there as a Mechanic since 2000 and was given Rs.5,000/- monthly. A certificate wherein the salary of the petitioner was certified by PW3 was also marked in evidence as Ext.A10. PW3 was cross examined by the 1^st respondent with reference to the

¶39

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶40

¶41

maintenance of a muster roll, attendance register, acquittance roll or EPF register at the workshop. It has come out during cross examination of PW3 that 20 workers are working in his workshop but a muster roll is not maintained. He has also stated during cross examination that contribution was not paid by him towards EmployersEmployees Provident Fund. Ext.A10 was found issued on 08.01.2008, i.e, after six years of the motor accident in question. In the above context, the Tribunal discarded Ext.A10 and the oral evidence of PW3 and fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal is found justified in discarding the oral evidence tendered by PW3 and Ext.A10 issued by him.

¶42

The motor accident was occurred in the year 2002 and therefore, the monthly income is modified to Rs.3,500/-. It is found from Ext.A4 to A8 and Ext.X1 that the petitioner had sustained head injury, brain stem contusion, SAH brain edema and Facio Brachial Monoplegia in the motor accident.

¶43

The primary treatment was at M.G.D.M Hospital, Kangazha and the treatment was also continued at Medical

¶44

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶45

¶46

College Hospital, Kottaym. Twelve months was considered by the Tribunal for calculation of compensation for loss of earning. The injuries sustained by the petitioner were proved as of grave nature from Exts.A4, to A8 and Ext.X1. The Tribunal had taken a period of twelve months’ for assessment of compensation for loss of earning. When considered in the light of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal is justified in considering twelve months’ and that period is maintained. Thus, Rs.42,000/(Rs.3,500X12) is arrived at as the compensation payable towards loss of earning. Rs.36,000/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal and when that is deducted, the petitioner will get Rs.6,000/- as additional compensation.

¶47

As compensation towards Transportation Expenses, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.500/- and it being inadequate, this Court awards Rs.2,500/- more.

¶48

Rs.2,100/- stands awarded by the Tribunal as compensation towards bystander expenses being inadequate is modified to Rs.3,000/- and therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.900/- as additional compensation.

¶49

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶50

¶51

As compensation towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,000/- and this Court enhances it to Rs.2,000/- and therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.1,000/- as additional compensation.

¶52

As compensation towards damages to clothing, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.500/- and this Court awards Rs.500/- more. As compensation towards Pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- and this Court enhances it to Rs.40,000/- and therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.15,000/- as additional compensation.

¶53

Rs.20,000/- stands awarded by the Tribunal as compensation towards loss of amenities and enjoyments in life, being inadequate, this Court modifies it to Rs.25,000/and therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.5,000/- as additional compensation.

¶54

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is continuing treatment till date and is also disabled. It is pertinent to note that not even a single document is produced before the Tribunal to establish continuation of treatment and the disability suffered by him

¶55

M.A.C.A No.577 of 2014

¶56

¶57

on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident. Though a claim is raised before this Court for future treatment expenses, medical bills relating to that are not forthcoming in evidence to substantiate. Therefore, the above claims of the petitioner are discarded.

¶58

In the re-assessment of compensation as above, the petitioner will get Rs.30,900/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred only) [Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,000/- + Rs.500/- +Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.900/-] as additional compensation. It 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. 1^st respondent shall pay the sum arrived at as additional compensation with interest fixed and the sum originally stands awarded by the Tribunal as compensation with interest fixed (if not already paid) within two months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is received, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019.

¶59

MACA stands allowed accordingly.

¶60

MJL

Vidhuran Yooda Thadevoos v. the Kerala State Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhuran Yooda Thadevoos v. the Kerala State Transport Corporation

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

Mohanan Vs Pradeep.v.S

Unnikrishnan K. Vs the Branch Manager, the United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Franklin

P.Ramachandran Vs P.K.Sugathan

Abdul Kader @ Abdul Khader Makthar Vs K.Ayub

Prasanna Vs K.C.Joseph