Partly allowed

Rubina v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Nov 2013MACA/1661/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award settling a death claim. The Court modified the apportionment, granting the mother a specific share and allowing the widow to withdraw a higher sum for house construction, with remaining minor shares put on fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified to grant the mother a share of Rs. 50,000, increase the withdrawal for the widow to Rs. 85,000, and keep shares of minors on fixed deposit.

Rubina Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/27TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 1661 of 2013 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 233/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM, DATED 26-03-2013

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶9

1. RUBINA, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.LATE MOHAMMEDALI, KANHIRAKUNNATH HOUSE, PO AKALUR, PAZHAYALAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. RAMSHEENA (MINOR), AGED 11 YEARS, D/O..LATE MOHAMMEDALI, REP.BY HER MOTHER RUBINA, KANHIRAKUNNATH HOUSE, PO AKALUR, PAZHAYALAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

3. ROSHNA (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS, D/O.LATE MOHAMMEDALI, REP.BY HER MOTHER RUBINA, KANHIRAKUNNATH HOUSE, PO AKALUR, PAZHAYALAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

4. RIFANA (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS, D/O.LATE MOHAMMEDALI, REP.BY HER MOTHER RUBINA KANHIRAKUNNATH HOUSE, PO AKALUR, PAZHAYALAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

5. MOOSA RYJAS ALI (MINOR) AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHAMMEDALI, REP.BY HER MOTHER RUBINA, KANHIRAKUNNATH HOUSE, PO AKALUR, PAZHAYALAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

6. SMT.AMINAKUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABDULKHADER, RESIDING AT KANHIRAKUNNATH HOUSE, PO AKALUR, PAZHAYALAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE OP (MV).

¶15

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

...2/-

..2..

MACA.No. 1661 of 2013 ()

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶21

1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KANAKATH TOWER, WEST FORT ROAD, NEAR FORT PALACE HOTEL, PALAKKAD 678 012.

¶22

2. AHAMMED KABIR, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.MOIDUNNI , MOOLAKKAL HOUSE, POOKOTTUKAVU, KADAMBUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK-679101 (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9/M-2209).

¶23

3. HASSASN, ELAVATHUPARABIL HOUSE, PO PALTHAMKULAM, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTPALAM TALUK-679101 (RC OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9/M 2009).

¶24

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶25

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶28

==================

¶29

M.A.C.A.No. 1661 of 2013

¶30

==================

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶32

S.Siri Jagan, J.:

¶33

Appellants 1 to 5 are the petitioners and the 6^th appellant is the 4^th respondent in O.P.(M.V).No.233/2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. Appellants 1 to 5 filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the death of Mohammed Ali, who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 3^rd respondent, driven by the 2^nd respondent and insured with the 1^st respondent. Appellants 1 to 5 are the wife and children of the deceased Mohammed Ali. The 6^th appellant, who was the mother of the deceased, was impleaded as the 4^th respondent in the O.P. The appellants and the 1^st respondent-insurance company filed a joint petition agreeing to settle the claim for a total sum of ` 6,50,000/-. The memo of settlement was signed by the 6^th appellant, who was the 4^th respondent in the O.P., as well. Thereafter, based on the settlement, the Tribunal passed an award on the following terms:

¶34

m.a.c.a.1661/13 - : 2 :-

¶35

“Joint statement filed, settling the matter for Rs. 6,50,000/- signed by the parties and counsels. So, award for Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six lakh, fifty thousand only). Out of the award amount 20% each shall be given to P1 to P5. Out of the award amount of P1, Rs. 50,000/- shall be given to P1 for initial expense. The balance award amount of P1, shall be deposited under fixed deposit for a period of 3 years. The share amount of P2 to P5 shall be under fixed deposit till they attain majority. Out of the award amount the company shall produce Cheque or D.D., for Rs.4,685/- in the name of M.A.C.T., Ottapalam towards payment of Court fee. Pay the amount within 2 months. The interest accrued on the deposit are entitled to be released on application on sufficient reasons. The joint memo forms part of the award.

¶36

The appellants have now filed this appeal challenging

¶37

the apportionment of the amount. According to the appellants, at least 10% should have been allotted to the 6^th appellant-mother of the deceased. They also claimed disbursal of at least ` 85,000/- out of the share of the 1^st appellant so as to enable the 1^st appellant to complete the construction of a house being constructed for the appellants.

¶38

We have considered the contentions of the appellants.

¶39

Taking a lenient view, we modify the award as follows: Out of the compensation amount, 50,000/- shall be paid to the 6<sup>th</sup> appellant as her share. The balance 6,00,000/- shall be shared equally by appellants 1 to 5. The shares of appellants 2 to 5, who are minors, shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till they attain majority. Out of the share of the

¶40

1^st appellant, the 1^st appellant shall be allowed to withdraw

¶41

m.a.c.a.1661/13 - : 3 :-

¶42

85,000/- instead of 50,000/-. The rest of the share of the 1^st appellant shall be deposited in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. The interest accrued on the share of appellants 1 to 5 can be withdrawn by the 1^st appellant for the benefit of herself and the minors.

¶43

With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of.

¶44

sdk+

¶45

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶46

///True copy///

¶47

P.A. to Judge

Rubina v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubina v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

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

State of Kerala Vs S. Sasidharan

P.M.Hussainar Vs P.v.Suresh

Shylaja Vs Rajeev K.R

Haseena Asharaf Vs State of Kerala

Surjith.K Vs Kumnhimoyi and Others

Raju a Fernandes Vs Vijimol Vincent