Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. P.K.Sreekumary Amma

Kerala HC23 Jun 2010MACA/2811/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court held the compensation was justified based on the deceased's student status and income, rejecting the insurer's contention regarding the multiplier used.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,36,500/-.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.K.Sreekumary Amma — 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932

¶4

MACA.No. 2811 of 2008(A)

¶5

-----------------------OPMV.84/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT:

¶7

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

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT:

¶11

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

¶12

P.K.SREEKUMARY AMMA, PAURNAMI, ANICAD WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶13

ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.2811 OF 2008

¶18

- - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2010

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Barkath Ali, J.

¶21

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the third respondent-Insurance Company challenge the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No.84/2003 dated December 22, 2007 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the death of her daughter Ambily in a motor accident.

¶22

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :

¶23

Deceased Ambily was aged 25 at the time of the accident and was a student at that time. On January 4, 2002 deceased Ambily was travelling in a Maruthi car bearing Reg. No.KL-5G-4449 driven by her father, first respondent from Chenganoor to Thiruvananthapuram. When the car reached at Kizhaikonam in Thiruvananthapuram district, the car went out of control and hit on a telephone post on the left side of the road. Deceased as well as first respondent sustained injuries.

¶24

MACA.No.2811/2008 2

¶25

The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained on 8.30 a.m. on the same day while undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent. First respondent as the driver, second respondent as the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,16,000/-.

¶26

Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending car remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending car filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶27

Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant

¶28

before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent, Insurance Company, has now

¶29

MACA.No.2811/2008

¶30

¶31

come up in appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and that the Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplier.

¶32

Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the counsel for the respondent.

¶33

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal

¶34

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive or not.

¶35

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶36

Rs. 4,36,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under :

¶37

Loss of dependency - Rs. 4,32,000/Funeral expenses - Rs. 2,000/Loss of estate - Rs. 2,500/-

¶38

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as

¶39

Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, took

¶40

Rs. 2,000/- per month as her monthly contribution to her family and adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 4,32,000/- for the loss of dependency.

¶41

MACA.No.2811/2008 4

¶42

Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal should have taken a lesser multiplier taking into account the age of the claimant, the mother of the deceased and that the income of the deceased taken as Rs. 3,000/- is on a higher side as the deceased was only studying for computer course at the time of the accident.

¶43

We find no substance in the above contention. Deceased was the only child of the claimant. Further this is a petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the multiplier as shown in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be taken which is 18. Further, the deceased was aged only 25 at the time of the accident and she has completed her degree course as seen from Ext.A5 and was studying in computer course. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking her monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-.

¶44

It follows that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed.

¶45

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.

¶46

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶47

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶48

sv.

¶49

MACA.No.2811/2008 5

¶50

MACA.No.2811/2008 6

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. P.K.Sreekumary Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. P.K.Sreekumary Amma

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

Santhoshkumar Vs J.Surapalan

Bukhary Vs Raziya Beegam

Nirmala Vs M/S.J.P.Associates

C.P.Pious Vs Alice Thomas

Padmini Mohanlal Vs Sasi V.V.

Noble C.Paul Vs Saju Joseph