Allowed

Jayasree v. R.Chandrasekharan

Kerala HC19 Mar 2012MACA/1563/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against inadequate compensation in a motor accident case. The Court enhanced dependency compensation by recalculating the deceased's income and awarded additional sums for loss of estate, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and love and affection, totaling Rs.1,84,600.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,84,600/- awarded for dependency, loss of estate, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and love and affection.

Jayasree Vs R.Chandrasekharan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/29TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 1563 of 2006 ( )

¶7

OP(MV)NO.1580/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS.

¶9

1. JAYASREE, D/O. CHELLAMMA, W/O. DECEASED VIJAYAKUMAR, THEKKEVILA VEEDU,

¶10

PEROOR, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

2. VINITHA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY 1ST APPELLANT MOTHER.

¶12

3. VIJITHA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY 1ST APPELLANT MOTHER.

¶13

4. SATHYABHAMA, M/O. DECEASED VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT ANIPPALLY, PADINJATTATHIL, KOLLAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS.

¶16

1. R.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O. RATHINAM PILLAI, MALLIGAIPURAM, 1ST STREET, TRICHINAPPALLY.

¶17

2. R.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O. RATHINAM PILLAI, 19 PODAYACHI STREET, PALAKKARAI, TRICHY - 1.

¶18

3. BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURACE CO.LTD., BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM.

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶23

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ

¶24

MACA No.1563 of 2006

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of March 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Pius C.Kuriakose, J

¶28

The legal heirs of a Mason, who lost his life in a road traffic accident, being widow and his daughters, have filed this appeal complaining that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation.

¶29

It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that for determining the dependency compensation, the learned Tribunal adopted only a very low monthly income of Rs.1800/-. There was evidence to hold that Masons, during that period, were being paid even by the PWD rate of Rs.175/- per day. It is urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads is quite inadequate.

¶30

Mr.Subash Chandra Bose, the learned counsel for

¶31

MACA No.1563 of 2006 2

¶32

the appellants argued on the basis of the grounds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced considerably. Sri.A.M.Mohammed Nazir, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, per contra, submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation on various heads and there is no warrant for giving any enhancement.

¶33

We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the impugned award. We are of the view that there is genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellants.

¶34

The deceased was a Mason and there was evidence

¶35

in the case to hold that the appellant was earning a monthly income much more than what was adopted by the learned Tribunal. We adopt Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. When dependency compensation is recalculated, fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- adopting the correct multiplier, the appellants

¶36

MACA No.1563 of 2006 3

¶37

become eligible for a further amount of Rs.1,53,600/- on that count. We award that amount to the appellants towards dependency compensation.

¶38

We noticed inadequacy in the compensation

¶39

awarded under various other heads. According to us, the appellants are eligible for a further amount of Rs.5,000/-

¶40

towards pain and suffering. We award that amount to the appellants.

¶41

Towards loss of estate, nothing has been awarded to the appellants. We award Rs.5,000 /- more towards loss of estate.

¶42

Towards transportation charges and funeral expenses, the appellants have been awarded only Rs.5,000/- by the learned Tribunal. Towards this common head, we award Rs.1,000/- more to the appellants.

¶43

The first appellant widow was very young and we

¶44

are of the view that she should have been awarded Rs.10,000/- more towards loss of consortium. We award

¶45

MACA No.1563 of 2006 4

¶46

that amount to the first appellant.

¶47

So also, we are of the view that the total sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection for the two daughters of the deceased who were aged 4 and

¶48

2 respectively is quite inadequate. We award to them together Rs.10,000/- rupees more.

¶49

Thus, in all, we award to the appellants a total amount of Rs.1,84,600 /- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty four Thousand six Hundred only), over and above what was awarded by the Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award

¶51

is modified as above, however, without any order as to cost.

¶52

sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶53

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶54

true copy

¶55

css/

¶56

P.S.TO JUDGE

Jayasree v. R.Chandrasekharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasree v. R.Chandrasekharan

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

Ittoop Alexander Vs State of Kerala

Preethilatha Sasidharan Vs Special Tahsildar(La)

Bipin Chansradas Vs G.Rajendran Nair

Saleelam Vs Sajith K.S.

State of Kerala Vs Bhaskaran Rajendra Babu

John Vs State of Kerala