Partly allowed

Dakshayani K. v. P.Kunhiraman

Kerala HC2 Jun 2011MACA/1709/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court heard an appeal against the quantum of award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the dependency compensation by revising the deceased's monthly income and personal deduction, increased pain and suffering compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000, and raised interest from 7% to 7.5%.

What did the court decide?

Dependency compensation calculated at Rs. 1,99,680/-; pain and suffering enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-; interest fixed at 7.5%; additional amount of Rs. 53,680/- granted.

Dakshayani K. Vs P.Kunhiraman — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 1709 of 2004(D)

¶6

¶7

OPMV.1021/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

¶10

DAKSHAYANI K., W/O. LATE SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BABU RAJAN, S/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

PUSHPALATHA, D/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

SURESH KUMAR, S/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

SUJITHA, D/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

PREM KUMAR, S/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶16

SUNIL, S/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KAYANARAMKANDY HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶18

MACA.No. 1709 of 2004(D)

¶19

¶20

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:

¶21

¶22

P.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. POLLAN, RESIDING AT B.S.NIVAS, KURINHALIYOD, VILIAPALLY, VADAGARA.

¶23

UDAYABHANU, S/O. KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PALORATH HOUSE, KOOVARA, MOKERI AMSOM, KOOVARA DESOM, VADAGARA TALUK.

¶24

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE-II, 2ND FLOOR, SEEMA TOWER, BANK ROAD, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶25

R1 BY ADV. MR. N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY R1 BY MR. K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN R1 BY SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA R1 BY SMTJ.N.NISHA

¶26

SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶27

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

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

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.1709 of 2004

¶30

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2011

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Basheer, J.

¶33

Mother and the other legal heirs of the deceased victim of a road traffic accident have preferred this appeal challenging the quantum awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶34

The victim was aged 25 at the time of the unfortunate accident. According to the appellants/claimants, the deceased was doing some small business apart from working as an autorikshaw driver, and thus, earning Rs.2,800/- per month. It was also their case that the deceased was a Karate instructor as could be seen from Exhibit A5.

¶35

The Tribunal reckoned the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- and applying a multiplier of 8, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- under the head of “dependency compensation”. Apart from the above, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was awarded towards transportation charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and

¶36

M.A.C.A. No.1709 of 2004

¶37

¶38

suffering and Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,56,000/- was awarded to the appellants with 7% interest. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award.

¶39

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the award is too meagre and inadequate, considering the very young age of the deceased victim and also the fact that he was a professional driver as indicated in Exhibit A4 and a Karate instructor as could be seen from Exhibit A5. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that there is some force in the contention.

¶40

The Tribunal has reckoned the notional monthly income of the appellant as only Rs.2,000/-. In our view, this can be taken as Rs.2,600/- The Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd from the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. In our view interest of justice would be met if the deduction is brought down to 1/5^th . The dependency compensation can thus be calculated as here under:

¶41

2600 X 12 X 8 X 4/5= Rs.1,99,680/-

¶42

The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/towards pain and suffering. The appellants are entitled to get

¶43

M.A.C.A. No.1709 of 2004

¶44

¶45

Rs.15,000/- under this head. Thus, the appellants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.53,680/- as additional compensation. Appellants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% in lieu of 7% awarded by the Tribunal. In all other respects the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶46

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶47

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶48

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶49

rkc

Dakshayani K. v. P.Kunhiraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakshayani K. v. P.Kunhiraman

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

K.N.Ani Vs Robit M.Thomas

Sharafudeen and Another Vs the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insuran

Sumod Vs Sajimon and Another

Sunny Vs P.K.Ayoob

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Vs Hindustan Univer Limited

B.Vijayaprasad Vs Anil