Allowed

Kandamuthan v. Dileep Kumar

Kerala HC10 Jun 2010MACA/1467/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Court enhanced dependency compensation by correcting deceased driver's income and awarded new compensation for loss of love and affection. Interest rate also increased from 6% to 7.5% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- awarded. Interest enhanced to 7.5% p.a. from date of petition. Insurer to deposit amount.

Kandamuthan Vs Dileep Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 1467 of 2004()

¶6

----------------------OP.MV.1120/1996 of M.A.C.T., PALAKKAD

¶7

APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS:

¶8

---------------------------------------------1. KANDAMUTHAN, S/O.VELLA, AGED 55 YEARS, MANNAPATTUKOTTA VEETTIL HOUSE, ANCHUMOORTHY, MANGALAM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. THANKAMMA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.KANDAMUTHAN, DO.DO.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶12

--------------------------------------------------- 1. DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.SURESH, ) PUTHENPURACKAL, MEMUGHAM PARA DESOM, ) MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. )*

¶13

) DELETED * 2. JOSE G. MUNDAKADE, S/O.GEORGE JOSEPH, ) MUNDAKADE VEEDU, KOTTARAMANGALAM. )

¶14

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, KAP COMMERCE CENTRE, R.S. ROAD, ALUVA.

¶15

*NAME OF THE FIRST AND 2ND RESPONDENT ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DTD. 21/01/2010 IN I.A.NO.118/2010.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P. KALLLIYATH

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶20

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

¶21

M.A.C.A. No. 1467 of 2004

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2010

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Barkath Ali, J.

¶26

In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1120 of 1996 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated May 24^, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,66,500/- for the loss caused to the claimants, on account of the death of one Ravi in a motor accident.

¶27

The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:Deceased Ravi was aged 23 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as a Driver, according to the claimants. Claimants are his parents. On March 22, 1996 at about 11 p.m. deceased Ravi was driving his tempo van bearing registration No.KRP-5684. When he reached near Thaloor near Pudukad, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-7J/9297, driven by the first respondent, came at a high speed from the opposite direction and dashed against

¶28

MACA 1467/2004 2

¶29

the tempo van of the deceased. Deceased Ravi sustained serious injuries and he died on the spot itself. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent. A tanker lorry bearing registration No.TNV-8467 was also involved in the accident. Claimants who are the dependents of legal heirs and dependents of deceased are entitled to compensation from respondents. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

¶30

First respondent, driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KL7J/9297, filed a written statement, admitting the accident but denying the liability and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased. The second respondent, owner of the offending lorry remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement, admitting the policy.

¶31

Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the contesting

¶32

MACA 1467/2004 3

¶33

third respondent. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,66,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and cost of Rs.2,500/-. The claimants have come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶35

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent, driver of the offending lorry, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation?

¶36

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,66,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-

¶37

Loss of dependency : Rs.1,56,000/-

¶38

MACA 1467/2004 4

¶39

Transportation	:	Rs.	2,000/-
Damages to clothing and articles	:	Rs.	500/-
Foe transportation of dead body	:	Rs.	1,000/-
from Hospital to house.
Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	2,000/-
Pain and suffering	:	Rs. ------	5,000/- ------------
		Rs.1 ===	,66,500/- =====

¶40

The learned counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for loss of dependency. The learned counsel also points out that no compensation was awarded for the loss of love and affection.

¶41

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- and after deducting 1/3^rd for his personal expenses Rs.1,000/- per month was taken as his monthly contribution to the family and adopted a multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs.1,56,000/- for the loss of dependency. The deceased was a Driver. The accident occurred while he

¶42

was driving his tempo van. The first claimant, father of the deceased, has also testified to that effect. As a Driver, he

¶43

MACA 1467/2004 5

¶44

would have earned a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,000/- , which works out to Rs.36,000/per annum. After deducting 1/3^rd for his personal expenses balance amount of Rs.24,000/- can be taken as his early contribution to his family. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 13 is not seriously challenged. Thus, for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 13). Thus, on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-.

¶45

There is another aspect in this case. No compensation was awarded for the loss of love and affection. The deceased being the only son of the aged parents, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same

¶46

In the result, the claimants are entitled to an

¶47

MACA 1467/2004 6

¶48

additional compensation of Rs.1,71,000/-. For the compensation awarded, the Tribunal awarded interest only at 6% p.a., which is very low. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization for the compensation already awarded and for the enhanced compensation. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending lorry, shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. The claimants are entitled to proportionate costs. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found

¶49

above.

¶50

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

¶51

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

¶52

Kandamuthan v. Dileep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandamuthan v. Dileep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baiju Thomas Alias Biju Vs the Manager

Mohanan Vs K.a.Pradeep

Bhageerathi Vs Vijayan

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs S.Divakaran

K.M.Sara Vs Gimmy Joseph

Salgunan Vs Pradeepan