Partly allowed

K.P. Bhadra v. Shajahan

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013MACA/377/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the insurance company only to the extent of the additional compensation and ordered payment of interest. The Court enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency by correcting the deceased's monthly income from the Tribunal's arbitrary Rs.2,000 to the proven Rs.4,900 and by applying the correct multiplier. However, no enhancement was granted on other heads of cla

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.82,400 for loss of dependency with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.

K.P. Bhadra Vs Shajahan — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934

¶7

MACA.No. 377 of 2006 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV.1325/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL, DATED 25-06-2005

¶9

APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS.:

¶10

1. K.P.BHADRA, AGD 42 YEARS, D/O.PACHI AMMA SUNITHA BHAVAN, MUTTAPPALAM, PERUNGUZHI P.O. AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. DISTRICT.

¶11

2. SUNITHAKUMARI,AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.PARAMESWARAN, SUNITHA BHAVAN, MUTTAPPALAM PERINGUZHI P.O. AZHOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. DISTRICT.

¶12

3. SULAJAKUMARI, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶13

D/O.PARAMESWARAN, SUNITHA BHAVAN, MUTTAPPALAM PERUNGUZHI P.O. AZHOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

¶15

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS.:

¶16

1. SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL SALAM,

¶17

S.N.VILLA, AVANANVANCHERRY P.O. ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

2. THE MANAGER,UNITED INIDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶19

S.K.P. BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

3. SREEKUMAR ALIAS KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLA MELATHIL VEEDU, NEAR MOORTHINADU TEMPLE, PODYANTEMUKKU AZHOOR DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE. (DELETED)

¶21

4. CHANDRA BABU, S/O.SUKUMARAN, MALLANVILA HOUSE, AZHOOR P.O. PERUMKUZHI. (DELETED)

¶22

RESPONDENTS NOS.3 AND 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED ON 22.8.12 IN IA.2139/2012 IN MACA 377/06.

¶23

R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR

¶24

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK

¶25

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.HARILAL, JJ

¶26

¶27

M.A.C.A. No.377 OF 2006

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2013.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

S.Siri Jagan, J.

¶31

The dependents of a deceased in a motor accident are the appellants herein. Claiming compensation for the death of their bread winner, the appellants filed O.P.(M.V.)No.1325/1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident which was owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent, the Tribunal assessed a total compensation of Rs.1,95,900/- as payable to the appellants. The appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. They would contend that the deceased was a postman, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4,900/-, as proved by Ext.A8 salary certificate. Despite proving the monthly income by adducing evidence, the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the monthly income as only Rs.2,000/- According to them, the entire Rs.4,900/- should have

¶32

¶33

M.A.C.A. No.377/2006

¶34

been taken for the purpose of calculating the dependency.

¶35

On the other hand, the counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income as Rs.2,000/-. It is also submitted that on that income itself, the Tribunal has calculated loss of dependency taking the multiplier as 8, which could not have been done. It is submitted that the deceased would have retired at the age of 60 and thereafter, he would not have earned the same income as before. These contingencies have not been taken into account while calculating the dependency, is the contention raised by the counsel for the insurance company.

¶36

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. When there is Ext.A8 salary certificate to prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,900/- that too as a postman in the Post and Telegraph Department of the Government of India, we are of opinion that the Tribunal could not have reduced the same at least till his date of retirement. Apart from that, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2010(2)KLT 802(SC), for a 46 year old man, the multiplier to be adopted is 9 where as the Tribunal had adopted only 8. For the first four years of the same, loss of dependency has to be calculated on the basis of Rs.4,900/- as the monthly income. Before reducing 1/3^rd for personal

¶37

¶38

M.A.C.A. No.377/2006

¶39

expenses, the total compensation till the age of retirement would be Rs.2,35,200/-. After retirement, it can be safely presumed that the deceased would have earned atleast Rs.1,500/- per month. Therefore, for the balance five years of the multiplier, the deceased would have earned Rs.90,000/-. The total would come to Rs.3,25,200/-. If 1/3^rd is deducted form the same, the loss of dependency would be Rs.2,16,800/-. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,34,400/- under this head. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.82,400/- for loss of dependency. In respect of other heads, we are not inclined to grant any enhancement in compensation.

¶40

On the question of interest, the counsel for the insurance company points out that although the appeal was admitted on 20.03.2006, the appellants paid process only in 2012. Therefore, he would argue that the appellants are not entitled to interest for at least six years. Although, the counsel for the insurance company is well founded on that submission, we are not inclined to deny interest totally to the appellants, but we restricted the interest on this additional compensation to 6%. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent insurance company is directed to pay to the

¶41

¶42

M.A.C.A. No.377/2006

¶43

appellants the additional compensation of Rs.82,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment, within two months. Since the Tribunal has reserved liberty to the insurance company to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle, the said direction would be applicable to the additional compensation also.

¶44

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE

Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE

K.P. Bhadra v. Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Bhadra v. Shajahan

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

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M.Devaki Vs Special Tahazildar

Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs Secretary, Trivandru Medical College Hospital Development Society

Siddique Ali,S/O.Mohammedali Vs Palekkodan Riyas

Balakrishnan Vs James

Carmila Sindhya, Rep. by Her Mother Vs Vinoj @ Vinojkumar K.V.