Allowed

Hashim v. Aravindakshan

Kerala HC26 May 2011MACA/1888/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in a claim for death compensation. The Court enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency by correcting the multiplier and for loss of love and affection by increasing the amount based on the deceased's age and the claimants' circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 1,06,000/-; total award modified to include additional loss of dependency and loss of love and affection; deposit directed from insurers.

Hashim Vs Aravindakshan — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

MACA.No. 1888 of 2006()

¶5

----------------------OPMV.555/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA

¶6

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN THE OP(MV):

¶7

¶8

HASHIM, KALLOOR VEEDU, KANNAMPALLY BHAGAM, KAYAMKULAM.

¶9

RAHEELA, KALLOOR VEEDU, KANNAMPALLY BHAGAM, KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

BUSHARA, KALLOOR VEEDU, KANNAMPALLY BHAGAM, KAYAMKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.K.A.CIJILA SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL SRI.RAKESH DAWNY KOKKATTU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P.(MV) AND CLAIMANT NO.4

¶13

¶14

ARAVINDAKSHAN, ARAVIND VEETTIL, FROM KANNOMKOTTU KIZHKKEVEETTIL, PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH KAYAMKULAM.

¶15

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM.

¶16

ANI, S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, MEETHEL KIZHAKKETHIL, KANNAMPILLY BHAGAOM, KEERIKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶17

ABDUL RAHIMANKUTTY, PALIVELIL VADAKKATHIL, KANNAMPILLY BHAGOM, KEERIKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶18

MACA.NO.1888/06

¶19

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶20

SHEEBA, KALLOR VEEDU, KANNAMPILLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶21

BEEVIKUNJU, KALLOOR VEEDU, KANNAMPALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM.

¶22

ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R5 SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA FOR R1 SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R2

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.1888 OF 2006

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Barkath Ali, J.

¶31

Appellants are claimants 1 to 3 in OP(MV)No.555/1996 on the

¶32

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. They are the children of deceased Rukhya Beevi who died in a motor accident.

¶33

In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 1, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of the deceased in that accident.

¶34

On March 24, 1996 at about 11.25 a.m., while the deceased

¶35

was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-4/8357 along NH 47, the autorickshaw collided head on with a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-4/1185. The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Alleging negligence against the drivers of both the vehicles, the claimants filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.3,74,500/-.

¶36

MACA.No.1888/2006 2

¶37

Respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the scooter involved in the accident. Respondents 3 to 5 are the driver, owner and insurer of the autorickshaw involved in the accident. First respondent remained absent before the Tribunal. The second respondent, the insurer of the offending scooter filed a written statement admitting the policy, but attributed negligence to the driver of the autorickshaw. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The fifth respondent, the insurer of the offending autorickshaw filed a written statement admitting the policy, but attributed negligence to the rider of the scooter.

¶38

This O.P. was jointly tried along with other O.P.s filed by

¶39

the other injured persons in the accident and a common award was passed by the Tribunal. Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that there was 70% negligence on the part of the first respondent and 30% negligence on the part of the third respondent and awarded a total compensation of

¶40

MACA.No.1888/2006 3

¶41

Rs.1,84,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

¶42

petition till realisation. The claimants have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶44

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal

¶45

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶46

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶47

Rs.1,84,500/- The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under:

¶48

Loss of dependency - Rs.1,44,000/Funeral expenses - Rs. 7,500/Pain and suffering - Rs. 15,000/Medical expenses - Rs. 3,000/Loss of love and affection - Rs. 15,000/-

¶49

Counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of

¶50

compensation for loss of dependency and on other heads.

¶51

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as

¶52

MACA.No.1888/2006

¶53

¶54

Rs.1,800/- which works out to Rs. 21,600/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 14,400/- was taken as his annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 10 as the deceased was aged 45 at the time of the accident and awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- for the loss of dependency. As the deceased was a lady aged 45, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,000/- which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 for her personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- can be taken as her annual contribution to his family. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 10. As the deceased was aged only 45, the proper multiplier that has to be taken in this case is 15. Thus calculated for the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- ( 16,000 x 15). Thus on this count, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.96,000/-.

¶55

For loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the age of the claimants and the age of the deceased, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable on this count.

¶56

MACA.No.1888/2006 5

¶57

In the result, the claimants are found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,06,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. They are also entitled to proportionate cost. Respondents 2 and 5 being the insurers of the offending vehicles shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal in the ratio of 70:30 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Regarding the apportionment of the compensation amount and disbursement of the same, the direction of the Tribunal will stand.

¶58

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶59

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶60

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶61

sv.

¶62

MACA.No.1888/2006 6

Hashim v. Aravindakshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashim v. Aravindakshan

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

Aliyar S/O.Mohammed Vs Aliyar S/O.Khadar

Frijin Rodrigues Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

K.v.Francis Vs Union of India and Others

Fr.Jose John Vs Babu Paul

A.K.Sujatha Vs Pavithran

Abdul Rahiman Vs Bava Kunju