MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 1 2025:KER:17245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 MACA NO. 1188 OF 2013 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.07.2012 IN OPMV NO.996 OF 2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: 1 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SMT.BIMALA BABY, SC, KSRTC A.K.ALEX ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTNO.2: 1 SARASWATHY AMMA MALAVILAYIL HOUSE, MANKALA PO, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR -691 523. 2 MADHAVA KURUP (DIED) MALAVILAYIL HOUSE, MANKALA P.O, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR -691 523. 3 ANIL, MALAVILAYIL HOUSE, MANKALA P.O, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR -691 523. (IT IS RECORDED THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HAS DIED AND RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SECOND RESPONDENT, AS PER ORDER DATED 24/07/2024 IN IA 2/2024 IN MACA 1188/2013) MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 2 2025:KER:17245 4 G.PRAKASH S/O.GOPALA PILLAI,KIZHAKKEMALIL HOUSE, AYMANAM,MARIATHURUTHU P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 017 5 ANITHA KUMARI, D/O.LATE MADAVA KURUP, NANDANAM, CHOORAKODE P.O., ADOOR, PIN-691551. (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SECOND RESPONDENT, AS PER ORDER DATED 24/07/2024 IN IA1/2024 IN MACA 1188/2013) BY ADV A.K.ALEX THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2025, ALONG WITH CO.63/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 3 2025:KER:17245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 CO NO. 63 OF 2014 IN MACA NO.1188 OF 2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 SARASWATHY AMMA AGED 46 YEARS RESIDING AT MALAVILAYIL HOSUE, MANKALA P.O., ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR - 690 515. 2 MADHAVA KURUP AGED 54 YEARS RESIDING AT MALAVILAYIL HOUSE, MANKALA P.O., ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR - 690 515. 3 ANIL RESIDING AT MALAVILAYIL HOUSE, MANKALA P.O., ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR - 690 515. BY ADV SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 4 2025:KER:17245 2 G.PRAKASH S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, KIZHAKKEMALIL HOUSE, AYMANAM, MARIATHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 015. BY ADV SMT.BIMALA BABY, SC, KSRTC ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1188/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 5 2025:KER:17245 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 19th day of February, 2025 Respondent No.1 in O.P.(M.V.) No.996 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein. The petitioners in the OP are the cross objectors. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by parents and siblings of the deceased Sunil, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.7.2003 According to them, on 19.7.2003, at about 5.30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a motor cycle along the Kottarakkara-Kottayam MC road, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15/4764, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 6 2025:KER:17245 3. Originally the OP was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred as the motor cycle ridden by the deceased hit on the rear side of the KSRTC bus and as such the application was treated as one under section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,60,500/-. 4. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A8. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 preferred this appeal. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 7. Heard Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/KSRTC, and Sri.A.K. Alex, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners/cross objectors. 8. The Point: One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It was also contended MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 7 2025:KER:17245 that the monthly income of the deceased taken at Rs.3,000/- is on the higher side. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the notional income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 9. The accident occurred in the year 2003. Therefore, in the light of the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2003 will come to Rs.4,000/-. If so, the annual income of a coolie during the year 2003 will come to Rs.48,000/-(4000x12). Since the outer annual income limit for maintaining an application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act is Rs.40,000/-, I am inclined to fix the notional annual income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/-. 10. Since he was aged 20 years, compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased as per the 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act is Rs.7,20,000/-. Out of which 1/3 is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting 1/3rd, the balance payable will come to Rs.4,80,000/-. Along with the same, the petitioners can claim a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. MACA. No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 8 2025:KER:17245 Since no medical bills were produced, they are not entitled to get any compensation towards medical expenses. Since he was a bachelor, the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation for loss of consortium. Therefore, the total amount due to the petitioners will come to Rs.4,84,500/- (4,80,000+2000+2500). 11. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed and cross objection is allowed in part, directing the 1st respondent to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,84,500/- (Rupees four lakh eighty four thousand five hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 12. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE sou.