Allowed

Thankamma v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC13 Feb 2023MACA/690/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court increased compensation for a motor accident death, fixing notional income at Rs.6,000/-. It enhanced funeral and estate loss claims to Rs.15,000/- each, added Rs.40,000/- for the widow's consortium, and deleted awards for love and affection per SC directives.

What did the court decide?

Compensation headed 'loss of dependency' revised to Rs.8,06,400/-; 'Funeral Expenses' and 'Loss of Estate' enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each; Rs.40,000/- granted for consortium; heads for 'loss of love and

Thankamma Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 24TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 690 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 1614/2007 OF II ADDITIONAL

¶7

DISTRICT COURT & II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶8

TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶9

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 THANKAMMA W/O.DEVARAJAM PILLAI, THODIYIL VEEDU, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

2 GEETHA D/O.THANKAMMA, THODIYIL VEEDU, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶12

3 LETHA D/O.THANKAMMA, THODIYIL VEEDU, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶14

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001.

¶16

BY ADV ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.A.C.A.No.690 of 2012

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= M.A.C.A.No. 690 of 2012

¶21

========================== Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The legal heirs of Minilal, who died in an accident on 10.03.2007 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent – driver of a bus owned by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), are the appellants before this Court; and they impugn the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal' for short), in OP(MV) No.1614/07, on the ground that the compensation awarded thereunder is exiguous.

¶24

Sri.P.Pratheesh – learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that the learned Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the deceased to be only Rs.2,500/-, though his clients had averred very clearly that he was working abroad and obtaining a much larger figure. He then added that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also in error, since it is gone by the age of the mother and not by the age of the deceased, who was only 31 years old at the time of accident and

¶25

M.A.C.A.No.690 of 2012

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

death; and further, that the amounts granted under the heads “Loss of Estate” and “Funeral Expenses” are inadequate. He thus prayed that this appeal be allowed and a just compensation be awarded to his client.

¶28

Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian – learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent – KSRTC, however, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is without error and therefore, prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

¶29

I have evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of various materials and evidence on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, with the express consent that they can be acted upon by this Court without dispute.

¶30

It is without doubt – as it is uncontested – that the learned Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the deceased to be only Rs.2,500/- and has multiplied it with 11, under the impression that the age of the mother is relevant for such purpose. However, going by Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]; the notional income in favour of a person with unascertained income in the year 2007 – when the

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.690 of 2012

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

accident occurred – is Rs.6,000/-, and 40% future prospects has to be added to it, since the deceased was only 31 years at the time of death. Further, going by the multiplier as postulated in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], it relates to the age of the deceased and not that of the mother or dependents, and hence the figure of '16' ought to have been reckoned.

¶34

Further, the amounts under the heads “Funeral Expenses” and “Loss of Estate” are both inadequate because, going by National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the compensation to be granted against them is Rs.15,000/- each.

¶35

Added to this, I find great force in the submission of Sri.P.Pratheesh that the Tribunal erred in not granting consortium to the mother of the deceased, who is admittedly his dependent. She is certainly entitled to Rs.40,000/-, under the same.

¶36

That said, since this Court has already taken note of the inadequacy in the compensation for “loss of dependency”, the grant of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection” and “pain and suffering” by the Tribunal in the

¶37

M.A.C.A.No.690 of 2012

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

impugned Award is incorrect, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and others v. [2021 (11) SCC 780]

¶40

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in the following manner:

¶41

(a) The compensation under the head “loss of dependency” is revised to Rs. 8,06,400/-, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-, adding 40% future prospects, and deducting one half as his personal expenses as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶42

Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶43

(b) The compensation under the heads “Funeral Expenses” and “Loss of Estate” is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each, from the present Rs.1,500/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, granted by the Tribunal.

¶44

¶45

(d) The compensation under the heads “loss of love and affection” and “pain and suffering” are deleted.

¶46

(e) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in

¶47

M.A.C.A.No.690 of 2012

¶48

: 6 :

¶49

all other heads are confirmed.

¶50

Needless to say, while computing the interest eligible to the appellants on the enhanced amounts, the period of 533 days – being the delay caused by them in filing the appeal – would be deducted.

¶51

The appellants will be eligible to recover the total amount of compensation from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim until realisation, along with proportionate costs.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶54

anm

Thankamma v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamma v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

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

Shine P.B Vs the District Collector

Suresh K Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary

Sinoomathaithattakunnel Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Annamma Cheriyan @ Annamma Vs Jawahar @ Babu

The Correspondent,Sreenarayanaguru Coege of Engineering Vs Muneer

The Correspondent, Narayana College of Engineering Vs Farook