Partly allowed

Arikkeerath Narayani Amma v. Mattayi Mohammed

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011MACA/1633/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident appeal challenged the award for the deceased victim's family. The court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, and love and affection, and adjusted interest payable.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified to include additional compensation of `85,000/- and interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition until realization.

Arikkeerath Narayani Amma Vs Mattayi Mohammed — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2011)

¶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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

MACA.No. 1633 of 2004

¶6

-------------------------------OPMV.387/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

ARIKKEERATH NARAYANI AMMA, W/O. LATE RAMAN NAIR, THIYYADATH HOUSE, P.O. POONGODE.

¶9

PADMINI, (MENTALLY RETARDED), D/O. LATE RAMAN NAIR, REP. BY ARIKKEERATH NARAYANI AMMA, THIYYADATH HOUSE, P.O. POONGODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

MATTAYI MOHAMMED @ KUNHUMOHAMMED, S/O. MOHAMMED KURIKKAL, MATTEYI HOUSE, P.O. POONGODE (DRIVER).

¶13

K.P. ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI PULIYODATH HOUSE, P.O. THENHIPALAM (OWNER).

¶14

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJERI.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R-3

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

A.K.Basheer & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ.

¶18

M.A.C.A.No.1633 of 2004

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2011

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Basheer, J.

¶22

The widow and the mentally challenged daughter of the deceased victim of a road traffic accident have preferred this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the award passed in their favour by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

¶23

The accident occurred in March 1998. There is no dispute that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, which was admittedly insured with respondent No.3. The Tribunal, after considering the documentary evidence available on record, awarded a sum of `.57,500/- with 6% interest.

¶24

It came on record that the deceased was aged about 68 years at the time of the accident. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as a Coolie and earning .3,000/- per month. He was the sole bread winner of the family. More importantly, he had to take care of his mentally challenged daughter who was in her early 30's. The Tribunal reckoned the notional monthly income of the deceased as .1,250/- and deducting one third towards personal expenses of the

¶25

MACA 1633/04

¶26

¶27

deceased and applying a multiplier of 5, awarded a sum of `.50,000/towards loss of dependency.

¶28

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the notional monthly income of the deceased can be taken as `.2,500/-. Therefore, the loss of dependency will have to be re-calculated thus:

¶29

The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of .5,000/- under the lead “loss of consortium”. We award a sum of .15,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of love and affection. We are satisfied that a sum of .25,000/- has to be awarded under this head. We do so. Thus, appellants shall be entitled to get additional compensation to the tune of .85,000/-. Appellants shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till date of realisation. The award is modified to the above extent.

¶30

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶31

tkv

Arikkeerath Narayani Amma v. Mattayi Mohammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arikkeerath Narayani Amma v. Mattayi Mohammed

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

Dakshayani K. Vs P.Kunhiraman

Sunny Vs P.K.Ayoob

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Vs Hindustan Univer Limited

B.Vijayaprasad Vs Anil

Hariprasad Vs K.Devadas

Prameela Vs T.B.Babu