Allowed

Sarala v. Hamza

Kerala HC6 Aug 2008MFA/752/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for death of the first appellant's husband. Court found the Tribunal undervalued income, treatment costs, and loss of consortium. Additional compensation was granted for dependency, medical expenses, and consortium with interest directed on the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rs. 45,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 1,20,000 for loss of consortium) granted; Insurance company directed to pay total enhancement with interest at 7.5% p

Sarala Vs Hamza — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 752 of 2002(A) ---------------------OPMV.651/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA ....................

¶3

APPELLANT(S): (PETITIONERS):

¶4

¶5

SARALA, W/O. LATE SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAMOOLA ILLAM, ANCHUKUNNU POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK,WAYANAD DIST.

¶6

SREENIVASAN, S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, MINOR AGED 9 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAMOOLA ILLAM, ANCHUKUNNU POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST.

¶7

P.KRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI, AGED 70 YEARS, FATHER OF LATE SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAMOOLA ILLAM, ANCHUKUNNU POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

P.PARAMESWARI ANTHARJANAM, MOTHER OF LATE SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAMOOLA ILLAM, ANCHUKUNNU POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (APPELLANT 2 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT).

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS):

¶11

¶12

HAMZA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MOIDU, PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE, ANCHUKUNNU POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF JEEP NO.KL-10 A/3129 D.L.NO. NOT KNOWN).

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (POLICY NO.100306/31/01/723/95 VALID FROM 6.6.95 TO 5.6.96).

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

¶15

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶17

V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.

¶18

M.F.A. No. 752 OF 2002

¶19

Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Ramachandran Nair,J.

¶22

This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of husband of the first appellant in a motor accident caused by the first respondent. Second appellant is a minor child and third appellant is the mother of the deceased. The victim was only 30 years old when he sustained major injury, including head injury, caused by the first respondent with the jeep he was driving. The case of the appellant is that compensation awarded under various heads are very low. Counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that there is no case for enhancement because income of the victim was not proved before the Tribunal. Besides this, it is contended by counsel for the insurance company that the multiplier adopted at 18 is incorrect because the victim was 30 years old and therefore the multiplier to be adopted is 17. On going through the award and after hearing counsel for the appellants and insurance company, we find that inspite of the

¶23

¶24

claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month, the Tribunal fixed it at Rs. 1200/-. We are of the view that the oral evidence furnished by the first appellant regarding the income of the deceased was rejected by the Tribunal without any material. The insurance company does not dispute the fact that family of the victim was dependant on the income earned by him. The victim's family consists of appellants and father of the deceased who died after filing of the claim petition. If evidence is not available about the income of the decased, one way of estimating it is probably to consider the expenditure for the maintenance of the family. We do not think a family of the size of four people could be maintained without income of Rs. 3500/- per month. However, since details were not furnished by the first appellant, we refix the annual income at Rs. 15,000/exclusive of personal expenses. Applying the multiplier suggested by counsel for the insurance company, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- for loss of dependency as against Rs. 1,72,800/- granted by the Tribunal. We also find force in the contention of appellants that cost of treatment of Rs. 5000/- is thoroughly inadequate. The victim survived the accident for around

¶25

¶26

about 7 months and he underwent treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Calicut and at the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, Bangalore which are on record. Obviously the treatment for 7 months with by-standers out of the town would have cost the appellants an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, as claimed by the appellants. We therefore allow the whole claim. Consequently in addition to Rs. 5,000/- granted by the Tribunal, we grant additional compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. Similarly first appellant was only 27 years old when he lost her husband. Therefore loss of consortium granted by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- is ridiculously low. We enhance this to Rs. 30,000/-. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment.

¶27

Appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶28

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.

¶29

¶30

Sarala v. Hamza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarala v. Hamza

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

K.Purushothaman Vs O.C.Joseph

Ravi Vs Suprabha Mohan

Joseph Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd,Thalassery

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

Mary Philip Vs Sabu Jacob

Pichakathil Sreedharan Nair Vs the Deputy Commissioner