Partly allowed

Yoosuf Kunju v. the Divisional Manager

Kerala HC26 Nov 2013MACA/1768/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the legal heirs of a deceased. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in using an incorrect multiplier and under-awarding compensation for pain and suffering and loss of estate, ordering an enhancement of amounts.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of ₹1,95,000 granted over Tribunal's award, carrying 9% interest.

Yoosuf Kunju Vs the Divisional Manager — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 1768 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1783/2007 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 27.07.2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. YOOSUF KUNJU, F/O.LATE MUJEEB RAHMAN, RAFEEKA MANZIL, VENGAI, MYNAGAPPALLY.

¶9

2. ISHABEEVI, M/O.LATE MUJEEB RAHMAN, RAFEEKA MANZIL, VENGAI, MYNAGAPPALLY.

¶10

3. RAHUMATH BEEVI, SISTER OF LATE MUJEEB RAHMAN, RAFEEKA MANZIL, VENGAI

¶11

MYNAGAPPALLY.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.3:

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S.NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM- 691001.

¶15

R1(B/O) BY ADV. SRI.ZIYAD REHMAN BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶18

M.A.C.A. No. 1768 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

S.Siri Jagan,J.

¶22

The claimants in OP(MV) No.1783/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, are the appellants herein. They filed the OP claiming compensation for the death of Mujeeb Rahman, son of the appellants 1 and 2 and brother of the 3rd appellant, who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle insured with the respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as

¶23

follows:-

¶24

Transport to Hospital and funeral expenses ₹5,000/Medical expenses ₹1,378/-

¶25

M.A.C.A. No. 1768 of 2011

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

Compensation for pain and suffering ₹5,000/Compensation for continuing for permanent disability ₹1,26,000/-

¶28

Compensation for loss of love and affection ₹10,000/-

¶29

Total ₹1,47,378 (rounded off as 1,47,400/-₹

¶30

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

¶31

Since the respondent insurance company enters appearance through counsel and the insurance is admitted, this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing both sides.

¶32

The contention of the appellants is that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal for calculating loss of dependency is not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport

¶33

M.A.C.A. No. 1768 of 2011

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

Corporation 2010(2) KLT 802 SC. The appellants seek enhancement of compensation under other heads also.

¶36

The learned counsel for the insurance company argues to sustain the award.

¶37

We have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶38

The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the

¶39

deceased as 3000/- per month. The accident was on₹ 01-10-2007. The appellant did not adduce any reliable evidence to prove the income of the deceased also. As such, the Tribunal has no option but to fix a notional income as ₹ 2000/- which does not appear to be on the lower side in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore we are not inclined to enhance the monthly income of the deceased. But we find that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier as 7 although the deceased was only 28 years old. Apparently, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier based on the age of the dependants. But, the supreme court has in Amrith Bhanu

¶40

M.A.C.A. No. 1768 of 2011 : 4 :

¶41

Shali and others V. National Insurance Company and

¶42

others 2012 ACJ 2002 held that the multiplier has to be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. Going by Sarla Verma's case (supra), for a 28 year old person, the multiplier applicable is 17. Of course, since the parents are the only dependants, 50% has to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased, going by the decision in the same decision. Recalculating the compensation for loss of dependency based on the above inputs, the compensation under that head would come to .3,06,000/-(3000x12x17/2) instead of 1,26,000/-₹ ₹ awarded by the Tribunal. The difference would be 1,80,000/-.₹ 7. We find that the Tribunal has awarded only 5,000/-₹ for compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased. The deceased died in the hospital after the accident. Taking into account these facts, we enhance the compensation for pain and suffering to 10,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any₹

¶43

M.A.C.A. No. 1768 of 2011

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

compensation towards loss of estate. We fix the compensation under this head as 10,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance₹ compensation under the other heads. Consequently the appellants would be entitled to get additional compensation of ₹ 1,95,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount would carry 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. Two months time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount also.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

S.Siri Jagan , Judge

¶49

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

PA TO JUDGE

¶52

rmm

Yoosuf Kunju v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yoosuf Kunju v. the Divisional Manager

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

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sajeena

Suresh Vs S.P.Alagappan

S.Vinod Vs Mohammed Kunju

The Registrar,University of Calicut Vs Esi Corporation and Another

Binoj Antony Vs M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Santhosh Mathew Vs Ganeshan P. and Others