Sareena Banu vs Sumesh Kumar P.S. & Ors.

This appeal is preferred against the award dated 06.12.2013 in OP (MV) No.725 of 2010 being aggrieved by inadequate compensation awarded by MACT, Thodupuzha.

The short facts of the case are as follows: On 26.08.2010, at about 10.30 a.m., at Kadamakuzhy, when the claimant stepped onto the footboard of the bus bearing Registration No. KL-6D-7744, the 1^st respondent, the conductor, gave the signal bell to the driver. The 2^nd respondent, the driver, moved the bus forward without ascertaining whether the claimant had safely boarded the bus. As a result of the negligent and careless acts of respondents 1 and 2, the claimant was thrown out of the bus and sustained serious injuries.The 3^rd respondent is the owner of the bus, and the 4^th respondent is the insurer. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-from the respondents.

Respondents 1 to 3 did not file any written statement. However, the 4^th respondent/insurer filed a written statement and admitted that vehicle No. KL-6D-7744 was covered by a valid insurance policy. However, it was contended that the 2^nd respondent was not duly licensed to drive the vehicle and since the insured had violated the policy conditions, the 4^th respondent was not liable to indemnify the insured.

The issues framed for consideration by the Tribunal were as follows:

Before the Tribunal, Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No oral evidence has been adduced by both sides.

After examining the documents produced, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the vehicle was validly insured with the 4^th respondent and the 4^th respondent is liable to indemnify the 3^rd respondent, who is the owner of the bus. However, the contention with respect to the lack of license was not proved by any supporting documents.

The Tribunal considered Ext.A6 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Thodupuzha, which assessed that the claimant had sustained a permanent disability of 17%. At the time of the accident, the Tribunal noted that the claimant was 54 years of age. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the claimant, who was a housewife, at Rs. 4,000/-.

In Shishupal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors. [2026 (4) KHC 279], the Hon'ble Apex Court recognised homemakers as "nation builders" and laid down a separate head of compensation for the loss of domestic care by fixing the notional value of unpaid domestic services at Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is to be noted that the said decision related to the death of a homemaker in a motor accident that occurred in the year 2001.

In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2010. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the notional monthly income of the claimant, being a homemaker, can be fixed at Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the compensation payable towards loss of income is reworked at Rs.1,80,000/- (30,000 × 6). Since the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability at 17%, and the applicable multiplier is 11, the compensation payable towards permanent disability is liable to be reworked as Rs. 6,73,200/-(30,000 × 12 × 17/100 × 11).

The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:

In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.7,39,440/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only). The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition.

The remaining conditions of the award shall stand confirmed. However, the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 366 days condoned while admitting the appeal.