Partly allowed

K.Muthuramalingam v. K.Balakuruppu

Kerala HC3 Jan 2008MFA/763/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the Kerala High Court addressed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court modified the disability compensation and loss of earning amounts, directing an additional payment of Rs. 15,750 with interest from the insurer.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 15,750 with 6% interest from the date of petition.

K.Muthuramalingam Vs K.Balakuruppu — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

MFA.No. 763 of 2000()

¶6

--------------------------------

¶7

OPMV.1498/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶8

APPELLANT - PETITIONER:

¶9

-----------------------------------

¶10

K. MUTHURAMALINGAM, AGED 49, S/O. KRISHNA THEVAR, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.10, KALEESWARANAGAR, COIMBATORE - 9.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶12

RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS:

¶13

---------------------------------------------

¶14

1. K. BALAKURAPPU, B.B.T. BUS DEPOT, CHALAKUDY.

¶15

2. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., POLLACHI.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF

¶17

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

M.F.A. NO. 763 OF 2000

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2008

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

--------------------

¶24

Petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1498 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant.

¶25

2. On 10.6.1993, the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. He filed the O.P. claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- impleading the driver, owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle which was a stage carriage bus bearing Reg. No.KRR-9847. First respondent filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. Second respondent, driver of the vehicle, was subsequently removed from the party array. Third respondent, Insurer, filed a written statement contending that the the driver of the bus had no valid licence. Negligence alleged was denied. The quantum of compensation claimed

¶26

M.F.A. NO. 783 OF 2000

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

was also disputed. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, driver of the bus. It further found that the petitioner was entitled to get a compensation of Rs.41,250/- and directed the third respondent to pay the amount awarded. Complaining that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre, the petitioner himself had filed this appeal.

¶29

3. According to the appellant he was working as Foreman of M/s.Kumar Enterprises, Coimbatore. He produced a salary certificate also. But the Tribunal did not accept the same on the ground that the appellant did not examine his employer. Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.1,250/-. The accident occurred on 10.6.1993 and the appellant was aged about 42 years at that time. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/per month. So the disability compensation fixed by the Tribunal is modified and it is re-fixed, taking Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income, which will come to Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,500/- under that count. So the appellant is entitled to a further compensation of Rs.13,500/-. Appellant is

¶30

M.F.A. NO. 783 OF 2000

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

also entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,250/towards loss of earning. But I do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on any other counts. So the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.15,750/- with 6% interest.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. An award is passed in favour of the appellant authorising him to recover an additional compensation of Rs.15,750/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till date of realisation. The Insurer is directed to deposit that amount also. On deposit, the appellant can withdraw the entire amount.

¶34

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶35

vsv

¶36

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. NO. 763 OF 2000

¶37

===================== J U D G M E N T

¶38

3RD JANUARY, 2008

K.Muthuramalingam v. K.Balakuruppu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muthuramalingam v. K.Balakuruppu

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Santha

N.K.Rajan Vs P.K.Beerankutty

Devi Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

T.R.Valsan Vs Shri.a.P.M.Muhammed Haneesh & Others

K.Shajith Kumar Vs P.Mohanan

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Pradeep