Allowed

M.J.Joseph @ Jose John v. the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

Kerala HC27 Feb 2024MACA/251/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents of a man killed in a collision with a KSRTC bus sought enhancement of the Tribunal's compensation award. The court revised the notional monthly income upward, added future prospects, and enhanced consortium and conventional heads, granting additional compensation with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.6,50,400 with interest and proportionate costs to be deposited by 1st respondent within three months; interest excluded from 28.04.2009 to 28.04.2011.

M.J.Joseph @ Jose John Vs the Managing Director… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

MACA.No.251/12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶7

MACA NO.251 OF 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 162/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 M.J.JOSEPH @ JOSE JOHN, S/O.JOHN.

¶10

2 JANCY JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MANIKKUTTIYIL HOUSE, P.O.ELANJI, KOOTHATTUKULAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2 C.V.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.ERAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 620.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA.No.251/12

JUDGMENT

Appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV). No.162 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of one Rony Jose due to injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 08.12.2004.

¶22

According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by a KSRTC bus, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The 1st respondent is the Managing Director, KSRTC, the owner of the said vehicle. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a sales representative in M/s Cee Cee Enterprises with a monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. Appellants are the parents of the deceased. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

¶23

The respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte. Evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and being the owner of the said vehicle, both the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The claim petition was filed for

¶24

MACA.No.251/12

¶25

¶26

total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,56,500/-. The 1^st respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 22.01.2005 till the date of actual payment with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Heard Sri.Nimod A.R, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

¶28

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable or not. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, while determining the compensation for loss of dependency, the Tribunal took a meagre amount of Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant brought the attention of this Court to Ext.A5 salary certificate, wherein the salary of the deceased was shown as Rs.7,000/-. It was also pointed out that, in Ext.A1 FIR also the deceased was specifically referred to, as the employee of M/s.Cee Cee Enterprises. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would point out that even though Ext.A5 was

¶29

MACA.No.251/12

¶30

¶31

produced, the same was not proved by examining any of the persons concerned. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal, not accepting the same, is legally sustainable and no interference is warranted.

¶32

After examining the materials placed on record, I am of the view that the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- is too much on the lower side, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004. It is to be noted in this regard that in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.[2011 (13) SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary person without any skills as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004. Here, in this case, even though Ext.A5 as such cannot be accepted as far as the monthly income is concerned, the fact that he was an employee in a reputed establishment as a sales representative, is very well evident from the contents of the Ext.A5 as well. Therefore, since he had employment with a regular salary, a slightly higher income than an ordinary worker without any skills can be adopted. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income as Rs.5,500/-.

¶33

MACA.No.251/12 5

¶34

It is also discernible from the records that the Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects of the deceased. As the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 40% ought to have been made towards future prospects. Since the appellants are the parents of the deceased deduction to be made towards personal expenses should be ½. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation with the above-revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.7,85,400/- [(5500+40%) x 12 x 17 x ½]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,20,000/- and thus the additional compensation would come to Rs.5,65,400/-.

¶35

The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses was only Rs.5,000/- and in the light of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted. Similarly, towards loss of estate an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal and in the light of Pranay Sethi (supra) an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- is to be awarded.

¶36

The next head which is to be considered is the loss of consortium. In the light of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd.

¶37

v. Nanu Ram & Others 2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC) and

¶38

MACA.No.251/12

¶39

¶40

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [2020 (3)

¶41

KHC 760], being the parents, both the appellants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium. In this case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection. Since it is held in Satinder Kaur (supra) that, when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, no separate compensation needs to be awarded towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection, can be adjusted against the amount fixed towards loss of consortium. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the said head. Thus, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.6,50,400/-[565400+10000+5000+70000].

¶42

In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 28.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV). No.162 of 2005 is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.6,50,400/- [Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand and four hundred only] and the said amount shall be deposited by the 1st respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified

¶43

MACA.No.251/12

¶44

¶45

that, the delay of 858 days was condoned by this Court subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest during the period from 28.04.2009 till 28.04.2011, the respondent shall be entitled to exclude the said period while computing the additional compensation. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, they fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶48

DG/29.2.24

M.J.Joseph @ Jose John v. the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Joseph @ Jose John v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra, Vs New India Insurance Company Limited

Santhosh Kumar Vs the Divisional Manager

Abdul Basheer Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shaju Jose @ Shaju T.J Vs Martin

Nishad @ Muhammad Nishad.C Vs Arun Krishnan R.

Vishnu P., Vs Saji M.J.