Allowed

Kochubava v. Anirudhan

Kerala HC21 Mar 2012MACA/1704/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and modified the Tribunal's award in a fatal motor accident case. The Court recalculated loss of dependency based on a revised income figure and granted additional compensation for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses, totaling an extra Rs. 1,56,000.

What did the court decide?

The appellants were entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1,56,000 along with interest at 7% from the date of the claim petition, and the impugned award was modified accordingly.

Kochubava Vs Anirudhan — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934

¶6

MACA.No. 1704 of 2004 ( )

¶7

------------------------OP(MV). 773/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :

¶9

1. KOCHUBAVA, S/O. SAID MOHAMMAD AND THE

¶10

FATHER OF DECEASED NAZAR @ ICHA, ARAYANPARAMBU

¶11

HOUSE, VATTAYAL WARD, ALLEPPEY.

¶12

2. FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O. KOCHUBHAVA AND

¶13

MOTHER OF DECEASED NAZAR @ ICHA OF -DO- -DO-.

¶14

3. JASEELA,

¶15

W/O. DECEASED NAZAR @ ICHA OF -DO- -DO-.

¶16

4. JASNI, D/O. DECEASED NAZAR (MINOR) OF

¶17

-DO- -DO-, REPRESENTED BY 3RD PETITIONER JASEELA OF -DO- -DO-.

¶18

5. MUBARK, S/O. DECEASED NAZAR (MINOR) OF

¶19

-DO- -DO-, REPRESENTED BY 3RD PETITIONER JASEELA OF -DO- -DO-.

¶20

BY ADVS.SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA SRI.RACHEL JOSEPH SMT.PUSHPY B.MURICKEN

¶21

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶22

1. ANIRUDHAN, S/O. BHASKARAN,

¶23

PALAPARAMPIL HOUSE, WARD NO.II, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYATH AMBALAPUZHA.

¶24

2. PRAKASH, S/O. LAKSHMANAN K.,

¶25

KAMPIVALAPPIL KOCHUPARAMBIL, WARD NO.14 OF

¶26

PUNNAPRA PANCHAYATH, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶27

...2/-

¶28

MACA.No. 1704 of 2004 ( ) -2-

¶29

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶30

4. SHAHUL HAMEED,

¶31

RAJINA MANZIL (FROM PANACHITHARAN HOUSE) WARD NO.15 OF PUNNAPRA PANCHAYATH,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE

¶32

AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶33

R3 BY ADV. SRI.SARAH SALVY

¶34

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

¶36

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶37

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ

¶38

MACA No.1704 of 2004

¶39

Dated this the 21^st day of March 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

¶42

The appellants are the widow, minor children and aged parents of a 28 year old man by name Nazar, who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident on 14.3.1998.

¶43

On the inflicted day the deceased was travelling on

¶44

the pillion of a two wheeler. When the scooter was at a junction waiting for signal, a bus insured with the third respondent Insurance Company dashed against its rear side. The deceased was thrown down and sustained very serious fatal injuries to which he succumbed two hours later.

¶45

Against the claim of Rs.10 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- as compensation,

¶46

MACA No.1704 of 2004 2

¶47

the adequacy of which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶48

We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶49

appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company. We have also perused the impugned award.

¶50

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased was 28 years old at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. Ext.A7 certificate issued by the Village Officer was admitted

¶51

in evidence to prove the income. However, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- which according to the learned counsel for the appellants is too low.

¶52

The learned counsel for the third respondent, per contra, would submit that Ext.A7 was not properly proved and hence Ext.A7 cannot be relied on for arriving at the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency. We notice that the accident was of the year 1998 and the deceased was aged 28. Considering the age of the

¶53

MACA No.1704 of 2004 3

¶54

deceased and the year of the accident, we are of the view that the appellant might have earned at least at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month by engaging himself in any job. The deceased left behind his aged parents, wife and two minor children, aged 4 years and 2½ years. The proper multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 SC) is 17. One third of the amount has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive, for maintaining himself.

¶55

When the dependency compensation is recalculated, adopting the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2500/- and the multiplier 17, the dependency compensation will come to Rs.3,40,000/-. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,16,000/-, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, would become entitled to a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- more under the head compensation for loss of dependency.

¶56

MACA No.1704 of 2004 4

¶57

It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards compensation for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are on the lower side.

¶58

We notice that the death was not instantaneous. However, towards compensation for pain and suffering, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. So, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs.5000/ - towards that.

¶59

We do notice that the widow was only 24 years old at the time of the accident. Towards loss of consortium, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. We are awarding Rs.10,000/ - more on that count.

¶60

The minor children of the deceased were aged 4 years and 2½ years at the time of the accident. Towards loss of love and affection, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the minor children are entitled to get some more amount as

¶61

MACA No.1704 of 2004 5

¶62

compensation for loss of love and affection. We are awarding Rs.15,000/ - additionally on that count.

¶63

Towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- which according to us is inadequate. We are awarding Rs.2,000/- more towards that.

¶64

Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,56,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand only), over and above what was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

The amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of claim petition till realisation.

¶66

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified as above.

¶67

Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶68

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶69

css/ true copy

¶70

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kochubava v. Anirudhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochubava v. Anirudhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Chinnamma Vs State of Kerala

Somasekharan Midhila Vs the State of Kerala

The Special Tahsildar Vs Rajeswari Amma

K.P.Ismail Vs State of Kerala

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Maniyan