KSRTC's Stand That Housewife Earns No Income And Is Not Entitled To Compensation For Disability & Loss Of Amenities 'Outrageous': Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that the monetary compensation to be awarded to a housewife who had been injured due to the reckless application of brakes while traveling in a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus, would have to be measured and weighed on the same scales, as it would, had she been a working woman. "...the contentions of the KSRTC, that a housewife earns...
The Kerala High Court recently held that the monetary compensation to be awarded to a housewife who had been injured due to the reckless application of brakes while traveling in a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus, would have to be measured and weighed on the same scales, as it would, had she been a working woman.
"...the contentions of the KSRTC, that a housewife earns no income and therefore, not eligible for compensation for disability and loss of amenities, is outrageous and beyond comprehension. The role of a mother and wife at home is beyond compare, and she is a true nation builder. She invests her time for the family and ensures that the next generation is fostered with the highest levels of excellence; and her efforts can never be taken trivially or brushed aside, as being without monetary value. The lives of human beings are never tested on the scales of their monetary worth, but by their contribution and selflessness", Justice Devan Ramachandran observed while enhancing the compensation that had been awarded by the Tribunal.
The appellant herein was a 61-year old lady who had been thrown off her seat and suffered grievous injuries while traveling in a KSRTC bus. It is the appellant's case that she had to undergo extensive treatment, being bedridden and under extreme trauma, for a long period of time. When she had approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda seeking a compensation of nearly Rs.2 Lakhs, the Tribunal had awarded her a mere Rs.40,214/- as compensation. It is against the same that she preferred the instant appeal, alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal had no reasonable nexus to the injury which she suffered, particularly because her future life had been very severely impaired.
The Standing Counsel for KSRTC, Advocate Alex Antony Sebastian P.A. opposed the appeal and argued that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was irreproachable, particularly since the appellant was a house wife, without any income. He submitted that as the appellant herself had conceded that she had no income, nothing more could have been granted by the Tribunal.
It is at this juncture that the Court referred to the Apex Court decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011), in which it was held that for a person whose income is unascertainable, the reasonable standard to be reckoned would be Rs.5,500/- per month, and thereby adopted the view that,
"Though, as I have already said above, no amount could really compensate the effort of a mother or wife at home, I am of the certain view that the Tribunal ought to have adopted at least this figure for the grant of a just and equitable compensation".
The Court also perused the wound certificate that had been submitted by the appellant and noted that she had suffered from spinal fracture, leading to its compression, leaving her with difficulty in breathing and pain all over the body. The appellant suffered from a malunited fracture on the vertebra, with loss of more than 50% movement; with back pain and stiffness, leading to limitation of the movement of the spine also to the extent of 25%, added with difficulty in breathing.
The Court noted that despite the same, the report recorded that she only suffered 12% disability. However, the Tribunal had refused to accept the certificate on the ground that the same was not proved by the appellant by examining the doctor who issued the same.
"Hence, when the learned Tribunal itself records that appellant was unable to perform her 'routine work' because of the spinal injury and trauma, one fails to gather how very exiguous amounts had been granted to her under the head 'pain and suffering'; while, compensation under the heads 'loss of amenities' and 'disability' has been totally denied", it was observed.
The Court thus ascertained the notional income of the appellant, at the time of the accident, to be Rs.5,500/- per month, in accordance with the Ramachandrappa case (2011), and further proposed to grant her Rs.50,000/- as claimed by her under the under the head 'pain and suffering', along with Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of amenities and convenience'. The multiplier 7 was also applied and the appellant was held entitled to Rs.55,440/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of earning' for four months was also revised to Rs.22,000/-, instead of Rs.2,000/-.
"Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part, granting the appellant a total compensation of Rs.1,64,654/-, instead of Rs.40,214/- awarded by the Tribunal; which she will be entitled to recover from the KSRTC, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till realization, along with proportionate costs on the enhanced amounts", it declared.
Advocates P.V. Baby and A.N. Santhosh appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Case Title: Kalukutty v. P.M. John & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 87