Partly allowed

Varghese v. Joy C.T.

Kerala HC11 Aug 2008MACA/521/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced the compensation awarded for the death of a minor child from Rs.1,05,254 to a higher amount due to inadequacy in the loss of dependency head. It directed deposit of the additional amount with interest and distinguished Section 166 claims from applicable second schedule compensation.

What did the court decide?

The compensation is enhanced by Rs.35,000; the Rs.1,05,254 previously awarded is continued; respondent to pay additional amount with 7.5% interest.

Varghese Vs Joy C.T. — 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 MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930

¶5

MACA.No. 521 of 2003()

¶6

---------------------(AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14/11/2003 IN OPMV.64/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR)

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

VARGHESE, MANAVALAN HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBU P.O., MALLUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU.

¶10

ELSY, W/O.VARGHESE, MANAVALAN HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBU P.O., MALLUSSERY, CHENGAMANAD.

¶11

SMITHA, D/O.VARGHESE (MINOR) AGED 7 YEARS, MANAVALAN HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBU P.O. MALLUSSERY, CHENGAMANAD.

¶12

(REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER - IST APPELLANT).

¶13

SOUMIA, AGED 7 YEARS, D/O.VARGHESE, MANAVALAN HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBU P.O. MALLUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE

¶15

SRI.T.SAJI

¶16

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

JOY C.T., CHATHALACKAL HOUSE, MALADOOR, ALATHOOR VILLAGE.

¶19

MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

SAJAN. U.P. S/O.PAPPU V.U., UDUPPAN HOUSE, PARAPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶21

MACA NO.521/2003

¶22

N.D.DEVASSYKUTTY, NARIKULAM HOUSE, PONAPPURAM, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶23

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ANGAMALY.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR FOR R3 & R4

¶25

SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R5

¶26

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON 11/08/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

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

¶28

M.A.C.A. No.521 of 2003

¶29

Dated, this the 11^th day of August, 2008

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶32

The appellants are challenging the award of compensation by the MACT for the death of minor child of appellants 1 & 2 in a motor accident. MACT fixed the liability on the KSRTC. It is seen that in a connected case, 2^nd appellant got an award of Rs.1,02,120/towards compensation for the injuries sustained by her. In the very same accident, appellants' case is for enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of their minor child, total compensation of which fixed by the MACT is at Rs.1,05,254/-.

¶33

We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶34

Learned counsel has relied on the Division Bench

¶35

judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muneer , reported in 2003 (1) KLT 137, and contended that compensation under structured formula provided under second schedule should be granted, even though the claim amount is less. However, we find that the second schedule is applicable for an application filed under Section 163A and not for an application filed under Section 166. Learned standing counsel has also contended that second schedule is not a scientific method for awarding

M.A.C.A.No.521/2003

-2-

compensation.

The next grievance of the appellants is that compensation awarded for loss of dependency at Rs.50,000/- is inadequate. We find that the claim amount under this head was fully allowed by the MACT. Of course, the Tribunal has not stated the method of computation of loss of dependency. Since the claim pertains to the death of minor daughter of appellants 1 & 2, multiplication factor has to be adopted with reference to the age of the parents. Moreover, in the case of a female child, dependency will not be steady in as much parents hardly can expect any support from a married daughter. In any case, we feel Rs.50,000/- under this head is too low. We, therefore, increase the same by a further some of Rs.35,000/-. There will be direction to the KSRTC to deposit the additional compensation awarded by us as above along with the compensation already awarded with interest at 7.5% on the additional compensation from the date of application till date of payment.

¶40

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶41

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶42

(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)

¶43

Varghese v. Joy C.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese v. Joy C.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Kumaran Nair Vs Dy.Thasildar(Rr) Kfc

Mary Philip Vs Sabu Jacob

Sarala Vs Hamza

N.a.Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Andamma John Vs K.K.John

Mr.P.J.George Vs Mr.Mahaboob