Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2014 IN OPMV 1254/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS::
1 SIVAKUMAR.S AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE OMANA, N.S.BHAVAN, AYANIVELIKULANGARA SOUTH, S.V.MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY 2 RATHEESH KUMAR.S. AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE OMANA, N.S.BHAVAN, AYANIVELIKULANGARA SOUTH, S.V.MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, S SIVAKUMAR, S/O.SADANANDAN -DO- 3 DEEPA KUMARI.S. AGED 34 YEARS AYANIVELIKULANGARA SOUTH, S.V.MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER SRI.R.PREM SANKAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THANKACHI AGED 43 YEARS D/O.DEVAKI, VAVARA VEDU, VAYALIL NAGAR-23, KARICODE CHERRY, MANGADU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KESAVA NIVAS, SREKRISHNA NAGAR - 99,
ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 001. 2 BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE-411 001. 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4 SUNIL K. S/O.KARUNAKARAN.R., SUNIL BHAVAN, THAZHATHU CHERRY, KOOTTIKKADA, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADVS. R3 FOR SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC R2 FOR SRI.LAL GEORGE ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellants herein are the petitioners 1 to 3 in
O.P.(MV).No.1254/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. The appellants had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri.N.Sadanandan(deceased).
2. Heard both sides.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; On 30.11.2010, at about 2.45 p.m., while the
deceased was travelling along with two others in a Maruthi Alto Car, bearing registration No.KL-02 AC 1581 through the Kollam - Karunagappally National Highway and when they reached Kuttivattom, a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KL-15/5275 dashed against the car. Sadanandan alleged to have sustained serious injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the same. Sadanandan was 74 years of age at the time of his death. The appellants had claimed that the deceased was self-employed and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 are the registered owner and insurer of the offending car and respondents 3 and 4 registered owner and driver of K.S.R.T.C bus, respectively.
4. The respondents have filed separate written statements, denying the accident and disputing the claim under various heads.
5. The first appellant had examined himself and a witness as PW1 and PW2, and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked through them in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.
6. In this matter, the Tribunal assessed the compensation and granted a sum of Rs.51,500/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. The Tribunal fastened the liability on
respondents 3 and 4, KSRTC and the driver of the offending vehicle. While exonerating respondents 1 and 2, the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company on the ground that there was no valid insurance coverage at the time of accident.
8. While assailing the award, the learned counsel
for the appellants pointed out an anomaly in the award for not-granting loss of consortium and the learned counsel submitted that Rs.1,20,000/- is entitled to by the appellants together under the said head and the appellants are satisfied with grant of the said sum. On a cursory reading of the award, it could be gathered
that no amount granted under the head loss of consortium. In fact, following the ratio in [(2017) 16 SCC 680] National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, appellants 1 to 3 are entitled to get Rs.1,20,000/- (@ Rs.40,000/- each) under the head loss of consortium. Thus the same stands granted.
9. Similarly on a perusal of the award, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that
Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head 'funeral expenses', though Rs.15,000/- alone is liable to be granted under the head 'funeral expenses' following the ratio in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). It
is further noted that Rs.10,000/- was also granted by the Tribunal under the head 'pain and suffering'. Since pain and suffering cannot be granted following the ratio in in [AIR 2020 SC 3076] United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, the same also is liable to be reduced. Thus, the additional compensation entitled by the appellants would come to Rs.1,20,000-20,000/- =Rs.1,00,000/-. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,51,500/- as compensation, out of which Rs.51,500/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.1,20,000-20,000) is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, fastening liability upon respondents 3 and 4 and it is held that respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to pay the amount. K.S.R.T.C is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellants within two months from today. On deposit, the appellants can release the same. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE AS