Managing Director, Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs Santha and Others

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenges in this appeal, the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, by which the legal heirs of one Sathyan, the driver of Kerala Road Transport Corporation bus, who lost his life in an accident, which occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of a bus belong to the appellant corporation, were awarded compensation. The appellant complains that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.(respondents 1 to 4). Several grounds are raised in the memorandum of appeal. Shri Sheji P. Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments before us based on all those grounds. Mr. Sheji P. Abraham would give thrust in his argument to the ground that the dependency compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 4 has not been calculated properly. It is submitted that the deceased was aged 50 at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal claimed dependency compensation by adopting multiplicand equivalent to the annual salary drawn by the deceased. It is not proper. The deceased would have retired from the service of the Kerala Road Transport Corporation within five years. The full salary could have been adopted as the multiplicand only till his date of retirement. Thereafter, only a lesser multiplicand, taking into account the family pension which will be payable to the widow alone, could have been taken. We find considerable force in the above submission of Mr. Sheji P. Abraham.

Per contra, it was submitted by Mr. K. T. Thomas, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under many other heads is inadequate. The learned counsel submitted that no compensation is awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering stating the reason that the death was instantaneous. He also submitted that towards the head of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection adequate compensation has not been awarded by the Tribunal. He also submitted that the multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal for calculating the dependency compensation is not correct. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC), the correct multiplier is 13. We find force in the submissions of Mr. Thomas also.

Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the impugned award, we are of the view that when the dependency compensation is recalculated, adopting two different multiplicands during the period of first five years and next eight years, the total amount payable to the appellant towards dependency compensation will stand reduced to Rs.64,117/-.

At the same time, we find that towards pain and suffering, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, the appellant will have to be awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/-.

Yet another point which was highlighted before us by the Mr. Sheji P. Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant was that, this is a case where total amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded towards costs. This according to Mr. Sheji P. Abraham is excessive. We find force in the above submission also and find that the maximum costs is Rs.10,000/-. The result of the above discussion is that the total amount of Rs.8,20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation under various heads, will stand reduced by Rs.50,000/-. In other words, the total compensation will stand reduced to Rs.7,70,000/-.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. No costs.