Radha vs The M.D., Ksrtc, Thiruvananthapuram

Johnson John, J

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 1313 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor and they are challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads as inadequate.

The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sreedharan Namboothiri, who was a passenger in the KSRTC bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner on 14.08.2011 at 9 a.m. and because of the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, the deceased was thrown out of the bus and he sustained serious injuries and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries. The 1st respondent is the Managing Director of KSRTC.

Before the Tribunal, respondents were ex parte and from the side of the claim petitioners, Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,47,725/- to the claim petitioners.

According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.8,000/- per month from his occupation as an auditor at Ooraima Devaswom Board, Vaduthala. The claim petitioners also produced Exhibit A11 salary certificate issued by the General Secretary of Kerala Orraima Devaswom Board to show that the deceased was having a monthly salary of Rs.8,675/-.

The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that without any valid reasons, the Tribunal rejected Exhibit A11 salary certificate. In paragraph 19 of the impugned award, the Tribunal stated that the monthly salary shown in Exhibit A11 is Rs.847/-. But, I find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no such figure is mentioned in Exhibit A11 and that Exhibit A11 clearly shows the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.8,671/-. Another reason recorded by the Tribunal for rejecting Exhibit A11 is that the petitioners have not examined the person who issued Exhibit A11 to prove the same.

The   decision   of   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.8,000/-, as the accident occurred in the year 2011. Therefore, I find that the monthly income of Rs.8,000/- claimed by the petitioners can be accepted for the purpose of calculating the compensation for loss of dependency.

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in case of a self-employed person, an addition of 10% of the established income should be made where the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was between 50-60 years.

Since the deceased was aged 60 years, the multiplier applicable is 9 and considering the number of dependent family members, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.6,33,600/- [(8000 + 10%) x 2/3 x 12 x 9].

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) would show that the reasonable amount payable on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-respectively and that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10% in every three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak & Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above metric awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.18,150/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/- each and the first petitioner will also be entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriram General Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat (2023 KHC Online 7244) shows that the compensation under the heads of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium cannot be granted to each legal representative of the deceased and in view of the said position, the petitioners are not entitled for separate amount towards Loss of Love and Affection.

In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format herein below:

Sl.N

o

Particulars

Compensati

on awarded

by the

Tribunal

(Rs.)

Final

Amount

Payable

1

Loss of dependency

2,88,360/-

6,33,600/-

2

Funeral expenses

25,000/-

18,150/-

3

Loss of estate

2,500/-

18,150

4

Loss of consortium

50,000/-

48,400/-

5

Love and affection

1,00,000/-

NIL

6

Transport to hospital

3,000/-

3,000/-

7

Medical expenses

70,415/-

70,415/-

8

Damage to clothes etc.

500/-

500/-

9

Bystander’s expenses

450/-

450/-

10

Pain and sufferings

7,500/-

7,500/-

Total amount Payable

5,47,725/-

8,00,165/-

Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the petitioners is determined as Rs.8,00,165/-.

In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the appellants/petitioners are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,165/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs One Hundred and Sixty Five only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of delay of 222 days in filing the appeal) with proportionate costs from the respondents. The first respondent KSRTC shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.