Radhamani vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the amount awarded as compensation.

The accident occurred on 02.10.2003. The deceased Mohan was riding a bicycle with his son, who is the petitioner in O.P. 1097/2003 through the National Highway between Cherthala-Alappuzha. At a place called Mayithara, the bus which was owned by the Kerala State Road Transportation namely No. KL-15/4284 hit the bicycle and both of them fell down. The deceased sustained very serious injuries and he was taken initially to the KVM hospital and thereafter to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He succumbed to injuries on 03.10.2003.

After assessing the various aspects the Tribunal below had granted an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in total as compensation against a claim for Rs. 8 lakhs.

The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident and 13 has been taken as the multiplier.

The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Omprakash submitted that the deceased was a qualified driver and his driving licence was produced as Ext. A13 and Ext. A14 is the copy of badge. He was registered owner of two vehicles and copies of the registration certificates have been produced as Exts. A10 and A11. It is submitted that the details of income have been explained and a certificate from the Village Officer was produced as Ext. A1 showing the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,11,000/-. This includes the income from the vehicles and the properties also. The Village Officer was examined as PW1. But the Tribunal below refused to accept Ext. A1 and the income that is obtained from the two vehicles and has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- only. It is submitted that being a skilled driver, even in the absence of direct evidence, going by the various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, a reasonable amount could have been fixed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Minu Rout and Another Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others, wherein the Apex Court was of the view that as far as a skilled driver is concerned Rs. 6,000/- per month can be taken as the earnings of the deceased. That was also a case where as against a claim of Rs. 5,000/-, the Tribunal has assessed it only at Rs. 3,000/- which was interfered by the Apex Court. Apart from the same, the Apex Court was also of the view that for future prospects 30% more can be added.

The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. Sri. Joy George submitted that going by Ext. A1 certificate it can be seen that there are 3 components under which the income has been claimed: (i) as a driver, (ii) from property and (iii) from two vehicles. It is therefore submitted that the method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

We have considered the rival contentions. It is true that the Tribunal has refused to reckon Rs. 72,000/- which was shown as the income from the two vehicles. The question is whether the said method is correct or not. As far as the appellants are concerned, even if they continue to be the owners of the vehicle if vehicles are transferred in their name, the income available from them cannot be equated with the engagement and service rendered by the deceased as a qualified driver. Even for using the vehicle they will have to employ a qualified driver and he will have to be paid.

The deceased being a qualified driver, his monthly income can be fixed as Rs. 6,000/- going by the decision of the Apex Court in Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others (supra) and we will be justified in fixing so. His claim as a driver is supported by Exts. A14 and A15. In that view of the matter, even if Rs. 6,000/- is taken as the monthly salary, it will not go beyond the annual income shown in Ext. A1. Apart from the same, as per the above decision for future prospects 30% also can be added. If that be so, monthly earnings will be Rs. 7,800/- and we adopt the same.

The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and if so the balance towards loss of dependency will be Rs. 5,200/- per mensem.

Apart from the same, the learned counsel submitted that only a conventional amount @ Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and compensation for pain and suffering. For medical expenses only Rs. 2,000/- has been granted and for funeral expenses also Rs. 3,000/- alone is granted. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , Rs. 1,00,000/- each can be granted towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- can be granted towards funeral expenses and therefore we recalculate the compensation in the following manner:

Interest has been granted only @ 7.5% per annum. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Supei Dei (Smt.) & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. [(2009)4 SCC 513], interest can be granted @ 9% per annum and we refix the same accordingly.

Hence the award of the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to that extent. The 1st respondent will deposit the award amount of Rs. 10,61,200/- (Rupees Ten lakhs sixty one thousand and two hundred only) refixed by this Court (less the amount if any already deposited) before the Tribunal within a period of six months and on such deposit being made, the claimants can withdraw the amount.