Allowed

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs.Tintu

Kerala HC24 Mar 2023MACA/2452/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident case where the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/month. The appeal allowed deduction of amounts for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering based on Pranay Sethi guidelines, while enhancing loss of estate compensation and capping interest at 9%.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing Rs.2,58,600 from the award; interest capped at 9%; balance deposit within two months.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mrs.Tintu — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS
FRIDAY,THE24THDAYOFMARCH2023/3RDCHAITHRA,1945

¶3

MACANO.2452OF2017

¶4

OPMV 1029/2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶5

KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,
REPRESENTEDBYITSMANAGINGDIRECTOR,TRANSPORTBHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶6

BYADVS.
SRI.T.P.SAJAN
SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS&2NDRESPONDENT:

¶8

1MRS.TINTU,W/O.LATESUNUMON,KOLASSERYKUNNELHOUSE,
HOUSENO.258/12,EDAVETTY,MUTHALAKODAMP.O.,
MUTHALAKODAMVILLAGE,THODUPUZHATALUK,KERALA,
INDIA-685605.

¶9

2ALENSUNU,S/O.LATESUNUMON,REPRESENTEDBYMOTHERAND
GUARDIAN,TINTU,RESIDINGATKOLASSERYKUNNELHOUSE,
HOUSENO.258/2,EDAVETTY,MUTHALAKODAMP.O.,
MUTHALAKODAMVILLAGE,THODUPUZHATALUK,KERALA,
INDIA-685605.

¶10

3ALWINSUNU,REPRESENTEDBYGUARDIANANDMOTHERTINTU,
RESIDINGATKOLASSERYKUNNELHOUSE,HOUSENO.258/2,
EDAVETTY,MUTHALAKODAMP.O.,MUTHALAKODAMVILLAGE,
THODUPUZHATALUK,KERALA,INDIA-685605.

¶11

4R.KRISHNAKUMAR,S/O.C.R.RAMACHANDRANNAIR,RESIDINGAT
KURIYIPPILLILHOUSE,MULAVOORVILLAGE,THRIKALATHOOR
DESOM,SIVANKUNNU,MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

¶13

THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY
HEARDON24.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

MACA 2452 of 2017

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st respondent/owner in OP(MV) No.1029 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, is the appellant herein, challenging the award, as it is excessive in nature. The claimants and driver are the respondents herein.

¶18

The claimants are the wife and children of deceased Sunumon, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 22.05.2011. While Sri.Sunumon was driving a motorcycle, he was knocked down by KL-15/4012 KSRTC bus driven by the 4^th respondent (the 2^nd respondent in OP(MV)No.1029 of 2014), and he succumbed to the injuries. He was a 32 year old man working in a construction company earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,69,000/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appellant/1^st respondent was directed to deposit the amount within five months from the date of award, failing which, he was made liable to pay interest @ 11% per annum. The

¶19

MACA 2452 of 2017

¶20

¶21

appellant/owner of the KSRTC bus filed the above appeal alleging that the compensation awarded is excessive in nature, and the direction to pay interest @ 11% per annum in case of default to make the deposit within five months from the date of award, is improper.

¶22

Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced from either side. Exts A1 to A8 were marked.

¶23

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award as claimed by the appellant. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri.Deepu Thankan appearing for the appellant and learned counsel Sri.Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶24

According to the appellant, learned Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects of the deceased, though he was not having any permanent job or fixed salary. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of deceased @ Rs.12,000/-. As per the decision

¶25

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others,

¶26

[(2017) 16 SCC 680] , 40% addition towards future prospects was liable to be allowed in case of an employee aged below 40 years having no permanent job or fixed income. But learned Tribunal

¶27

MACA 2452 of 2017

¶28

¶29

added 50% towards future prospects and that is not correct. When 40% addition is given towards future prospects, his monthly income can be fixed @ 16,800/- (12,000 + 40%). Since he was having three dependents, ⅓ has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So his monthly income would become Rs.11,200/-. Multiplier applicable was 16 as he was aged 32 years. So the loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.21,50,400/(11,200X12X16). The Tribunal awarded Rs.23,04,000/- towards loss of dependency. So, Rs.1,53,600/- (23,04,000-21,50,400) is in excess and that amount is liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶30

Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. As per Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , the eligible amount was only Rs.15,000/-. So, Rs.10,000/- is in excess, and that is also liable to be deducted.

¶31

Under the head ‘pain and suffering’, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Since Sri.Sunumon died on the date of the accident itself and being a personal injury claim, the legal heirs were not eligible to get compensation for pain an suffering suffered by the victim as per the decision Oriental Insurance Company

¶32

MACA 2452 of 2017

¶33

¶34

Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (Deceased) Through His Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another [2021 SCC Online SC 691]. So, that amount also is liable to be deducted.

¶35

Under the head ‘loss of estate’, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. As per Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , the eligible amount was Rs.15,000/-. So, the respondents 1 to 3 (claimants) are entitled to get an addition of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘loss of estate’.

¶36

Under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection’, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- in total. As per Pranay Sethi’s case cited (Supra) , wife and children of the deceased were eligible to get Rs.40,000/each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- in total. So, Rs.80,000/- is in excess of the eligible amount, and that amount is liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37

The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be just and reasonable, and it needs no interference.

¶38

MACA 2452 of 2017

¶39

¶40

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Amounts deducted in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of dependency	Rs.23,04,000/-	Rs.21,50,400/-	Rs.1,53,600/-	….
Funeral expenses	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.25,000/-	……	Rs.25,000/-	…..
Loss of estate	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.15,000/-		Rs.10,000/-
Loss of consortium/ Loss of love and affection	Rs.2,00,000/-	Rs.1,20,000/-	Rs.80,000/-	….
Total			Rs.2,68,600/-	Rs.10,000/-

¶41

The amount to be deducted by the appellant from the balance outstanding amount awarded is Rs. 2,58,600 /- (2,68,600-10,000)

¶42

So the appeal is liable to be allowed to the extent of reducing Rs.2,58,600/[(1,53,600 + 10,000 + 25,000 + 80,000)-10,000], from the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

The award is dated 30.08.2016 and the 1^st respondent filed the appeal before this Court on 14.07.2017. So admittedly, the award amount was not deposited before the Tribunal within the

¶44

MACA 2452 of 2017

¶45

¶46

five months’ period as stipulated in the award.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appeal has been preferred and is admitted by this Court, he may not be burdened with interest @ 11 % per annum after five months of the award. He further also submitted that Rs.11,00,000/- was already deposited as per orders of this Court, and only the balance is outstanding.

¶48

This Court is inclined to accept that argument and it is ordered that the award amount will carry interest @ 9% throughout, and no hike is permitted @ 11%. From the balance amount to be deposited, the appellant can deduct Rs.2,58,600/(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand and Six Hundred only) and the balance due has to be deposited in the Bank account of respondents 1 to 3 herein, in equal share, with 9% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of respondents 1 to 3 herein, towards Tax, balance

¶49

MACA 2452 of 2017

¶50

¶51

court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶52

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent shown above.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶56

DSV/25.03.2023.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs.Tintu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs.Tintu

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

Bridget Vs Vinod

*Nirmala Devi Vs N.K. Thomas

Rejitha Jagan Vs Thangal Kunju

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Saraswathy

Badharudheen & Anr. Vs Deepu K. Mathew & Ors.

Sukumaran Vs R.C. Ibrahim & Others