Allowed

Leelamma Joseph v. P.M.Antony

Kerala HC4 Aug 2008MACA/474/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation for motor accident victims. The court found the Tribunal's fixed income of Rs. 1,500 too low and adjusted it to Rs. 1,750, reducing personal expenses to Rs. 1,500, thereby increasing dependency loss compensation to Rs. 2,40,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for loss of dependency increased to Rs. 2,40,000 to be deposited with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Leelamma Joseph Vs P.M.Antony — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930

¶6

MACA.No. 474 of 2003()

¶7

---------------------OPMV.747/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN OP(MV)

¶9

¶10

LEELAMMA JOSEPH W/O. JOSEPH JOHN, RESIDING AT KUTTIAMBIL, WARRIAMPURAM P.O., ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT.

¶11

LIJI JOSEPH D/O. LATE JOSEPH JOHN, DO. DO.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶13

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OP(MV)

¶14

¶15

P.M.ANTONY S/O. MATHEW, PUTHEN HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, VIA.KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

VARKEY, S/O. KURIAN, CHAKIATHMUDA HOUSE, EDALAKKAD, MOOKKANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., ALUVA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.

¶21

M.A.C.A. No. 474 OF 2003

¶22

Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Ramachandran Nair,J.

¶25

Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel appearing for the insurance company. The first appellant lost her husband in a motor accident. Second appellant is the daughter of the deceased. The insurance company is not disputing the liability and they have not filed any appeal. In the appeal filed by the appellants, the prayer is only for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal rejected the salary certificate produced by the appellants because the employer did not maintain any salary register or muster roll. Even though salary certificate is unreliable, we feel the income fixed for the purpose of compensation at Rs. 1,500/- is on the low side because even unskilled labourer will be able to earn better wages. We accordingly fix the income at Rs. 1750/- and reduce Rs. 250/- towards personal expenses. Consequently the compensation for loss of dependency is fixed taking

¶26

¶27

the income at Rs. 1500/-. Applying the same multiplier, the compensation payable under the head loss of dpendency is increased from Rs. 1,92,000/- to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The additional compensation will be deposited by the insurance company with interest on the said amount at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment.

¶28

Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶29

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.

¶30

¶31

Leelamma Joseph v. P.M.Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelamma Joseph v. P.M.Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syamnath Vs Ouseph Varghese

K.C.Kunhi Mohammed Vs Mohanan

I.T.Radhakrishnan Vs Sivadasan

Pradeepan Vs P.Sadanandan

Siju.M.N. Vs Dist.Officer,K.P.S.C.

C.Murali Vs Commissioner Hr & Ce,Dept.Kkd.