Allowed

T.T.Chacko v. Bineesh Kumar

Kerala HC5 Mar 2012MACA/222/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Appeal concerns the adequacy of compensation awarded to the next kinsmen of a deceased who died in a road traffic accident. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award by enhancing compensation for pain and suffering, love and affection, funeral expenses, and transportation charges, totaling an additional Rs. 18,500 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was modified by awarding an additional sum of Rs. 18,500 towards compensation.

T.T.Chacko Vs Bineesh Kumar — 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 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/15TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 222 of 2012

¶7

IN OPMV.1365/2005 of MACT ALAPPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1. T.T.CHACKO AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, THAYIL HOUSE VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

2. PHILOMINA CHACKO, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.T.T.CHACKO, THAYIL HOUSE, VAZHICHERRY WARD ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

3. RAJESH CHACKO, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.T.T.CHACKO, THAYIL HOUSE, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

¶13

SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. BINEESH KUMAR @ BINEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, CHANDRAKANTHAM HOUSE PUNNAPRA (S) PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA - 688001.

¶16

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶17

REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH OF IRON BRIDGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.

¶18

R2 BY SMT. SARAH SALVY

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

STU

¶21

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ===================== M.A.C.A. NO. 222 of 2012

¶22

===================== Dated this the 5^th day of March 2012

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Ramakrishna Pillai.J

¶25

The unfortunate parents and brother of one Rajeev Chacko who met with his death in a road traffic accident occurred on 20/6/2005 are the appellants.

¶26

Allegedly while the deceased was riding a motor cycle, his vehicle collided with another motor cycle which was coming from the opposite direction. He who was seriously injured was taken to the Medical College Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. He was unmarried. Against the claim of 12 lakhs, the learned Tribunal awarded 2,70,000/under various heads. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge in this appeal.

¶27

MACA 222/2012

¶28

-2-

¶29

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance company. We have also perused the impugned award.

¶30

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was doing a Bachelor's degree course in Physiotherapy in the Dr.M.G.R.University at Tamil Nadu. The learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is low. It was submitted that the deceased was bright in his studies and considering the future prospects, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is inadequate.

¶31

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, on the other hand, would submit that considering the age of the deceased and the year in which the accident had occurred, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable. We see force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal was justified in fixing the notional income at `5,000/-.

¶32

MACA 222/2012

¶33

-3-

¶34

However, while going through the other heads of compensation, we are of the view that the amount awarded under other heads are on the lower side. As it is revealed that the death of the deceased occurred while undergoing treatment in the hospital, we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded towards compensation for pain and suffering. We are awarding additional sum of 5,000/- on that count. It is in evidence that the deceased was the elder son of appellants 1 and 2. However, towards compensation for love and affection only 15,000/- has been awarded. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to some more amount as compensation for love and affection. Thus we award additional sum of 10,000/- towards compensation for love and affection. Towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 3,000/-. We are awarding additional sum of `2,000/- on that count.

¶35

The Tribunal awarded 2,000/- as ambulance charges. We are awarding an additional sum of1500/- towards transportation charges. Thus in total the appellants become

¶36

MACA 222/2012

¶37

-4-

¶38

eligible to get an additional sum of ` 18,500/ - as compensation. The additional amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, except for the period of 660 days condoned by this Court as per order dated 3/2/2012 in C.M.Application No.288 of 2012 .

¶39

The appeal is allowed and the impugned award shall stand modified as above. No costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶42

sd/A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

ks.

True copy

P.S.To Judge

MACA 222/2012 -5-

T.T.Chacko v. Bineesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T.Chacko v. Bineesh Kumar

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

Dr.Dugluss Linsby Vs State of Kerala

Annie Vs State of Kerala

Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

Kariyal Pushpa Sudheendran Vs the Spl.Tahasildar L.a.,National Highway

Kalesh Kumar Vs George K. Varkey

M.K. Shyam Sundar Vs Special Tahsildar(La), Railway, Kannur