Partly allowed

Ramzeena and Others v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC30 Oct 2013MACA/319/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerned the quantum of compensation awarded for a fatal motor vehicle accident. The High Court enhanced the award by increasing calculations for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and love and affection, directing the insurer to deposit an additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,08,500/- with 9% interest awarded and directed to be deposited by the respondent within two months.

Ramzeena and Others Vs the Oriental Insurance Company… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/8TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 319 of 2009 ( )

¶7

------------------------OPMV.1232/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI.

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1. RAMZEENA, W/O.LATE KUNHALAVI, PARAMBADAN HOUSE, IRINGALLUR POST, THIROORANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MOHAMMED SHAMEEM-MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER-GUARDIAN, 1ST APPELLANT.

¶11

3. PATHIMMAKUTTY, W/O.SOOPY, PARAMBADAN HOUSE, IRINGALLUR POST, THIROORANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH.

¶13

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶14

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE, SC.

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

S. SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN JJ.

¶19

...................................................... M.A.C.A.NO.319 OF 2009

¶20

...................................................... Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Siri Jagan, J:

¶23

The claimants in O.P(MV)No.1232/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri are the appellants herein. They are the wife, child and mother of deceased Kunjalavi, aged 28 years, who died in an accident on 24.3.2003 caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle insured with the respondent. They filed the original petition claiming compensation for the death of their breadwinner. The Tribunal after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

¶24

Sl.	*Head of Claim*	*Amount*
No.
_1 _	Transport to the hospital	1,000/-
_2 _	For funeral expenses	2,000/-
_3 _	Pain and suffering	5,000/-
_4 _	For loss to estate	2,500/-
_5 _	For loss of consortium	5,000/-
_6 _	For love and affection	5,000/-
_7 _	For loss of dependency (30000x2x18/3)	3,60,000/-
	*TOTAL*	*3,80,000/-*

¶25

¶26

M.A.C.A.NO.319 OF 2009

¶27

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

¶28

The first contention raised by the appellants is that the deceased died while he was driving a lorry as an employee of the owner of the lorry. Therefore, it is clear that he was a lorry driver by profession. The appellants claim that his monthly income was Rs.5,000/-, but the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed the income as Rs.2,500/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in 2003, a lorry driver can be expected to earn much more than Rs.2,500/- as monthly income. Secondly, it is contended that the first appellant was only 22 years old at the time of death of her husband, despite which, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The deceased had a two year old son at the time of accident and an aged mother, despite which for their loss of love and affection, only Rs.5,000/has been awarded. It is submitted that compensation for funeral expenses, pain and sufferings and loss of estate are also on the lower side.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal has mistakenly

¶30

¶31

M.A.C.A.NO.319 OF 2009

¶32

taken the multiplier as 18, although the deceased was 28 years old, for whom the multiplier applicable as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) is only 17. The counsel argues for sustaining the amounts awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

We have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Although the appellants had not adduced any evidence regarding the monthly income of the deceased, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellants, it is clear that the deceased was a lorry driver at the time of his death. In 2003, when the accident occurred, a lorry driver can be expected to earn more than Rs.2,500/- as monthly income. We fix it as Rs.3,000/-. But as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the insurance company, the multiplier applicable for a 28 years old person is 17 as per Sarla Varma's case (supra). Since there were only three dependants for the deceased, one third has to be deducted from the personal expenses of the deceased. Calculating on the basis of these inputs, the compensation for loss of dependency will be Rs.4,08,000/(3000x12x17x2/3) instead of Rs.3,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The difference would be Rs.48,000/-. For a widow aged 22 years, with a 2 year old son, for whom a remarriage

¶34

M.A.C.A.NO.319 OF 2009 4

¶35

is very remote, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium is on the lower side. We fix the same as Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-. Likewise, for loss of love and affection of a 2 year old son and 57 year old mother, the compensation for love and affection of Rs.5,000/- is palpably low. We increase it to Rs.30,000/-. We award Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- for compensation for loss of estate. Altogether, the appellants will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,08,500/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of award till the date of payment. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit this amount also within two months.

¶36

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

¶37

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.

¶38

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶39

Ramzeena and Others v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramzeena and Others v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Usha Vs Jose @ Jossa

Jameela & Others Vs United India Insurance Company & Others

O.B.Bineesh Vs P.I.Noushad and 2 Others

C.Sreejith Vs Gopalakrishnan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sivan

P.K.Shahul Hameed Vs Jayalakshmi Madhu