Allowed

Lissie v. K.D.Kunjappan

Kerala HC4 Apr 2013MACA/667/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC enhanced maintenance compensation awarded by Tribunal for motor accident death. Court fixed monthly dependency income at Rs 3,000 and increased head-wise awards for dependency, consortium, and love and affection, directing interest at 9% p.a. on the additional sum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs 74,000 awarded; interest at 9% p.a. directed; insurer to deposit within two months.

Lissie Vs K.D.Kunjappan — 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 BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/14TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 667 of 2007 ( )

¶6

------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV.209/1997 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 26-10-2006

¶7

/APPELLANTS/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):

¶8

1. LISSIE, W/O.LATE BABU,

¶9

PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. DARSANA, D/O.LATE BABU, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. VARGHESE P.I., (DIED) PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4. MARY, W/O.PADAYATTIL VARGHESE,

¶13

PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

5. JUSTIN, S/O.VARGHESE,

¶15

PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

6. SHAJU, S/O.VARGHESE, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

7. JOSHI, S/O.VARGHESE, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY

¶19

SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶20

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

¶21

1. K.D.KUNJAPPAN, S/O.DEVASSY, KALATHY HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶22

2. A.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AYAROTTUPURA HOUSE, PARUTHIPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶23

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KODUNGALLUR BRANCH.

¶24

R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

¶25

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

S.SIRI JAGAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ. ================== M.A.C.A.No. 667 of 2007

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶29

Siri Jagan, J.

¶30

The claimants in O.P.(M.V).No. 209/1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, are the appellants herein. They are the wife, minor daughter, parents and siblings of late Babu, who died in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent, driven by the 2^nd respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. They filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the death of their beloved. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, assessed compensation under various heads as follows;

¶31

	Head of claim	Amount awarded `
1	Funeral expenses	3,000.00
2	Loss of estate	2,500.00
3	Transportation charges	1,000.00
4	Loss of consortium	10,000.00
5	Pain and suffering	5,000.00
6	Loss of love and affection	10,000.00
7	Loss of dependency	320,000.00
	Total	351,500.00

¶32

M.A.C.A.667/07 - : 2 :-

¶33

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

¶34

The primary contention of the appellants is that although the appellants had proved the monthly income of the deceased by producing Ext.A12 salary certificate and gave evidence in support of the same through the employer of the deceased, viz. PW2, the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the income at 2,500/-. According to the appellants, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the entire 6,000/- certified in Ext.A12 as the monthly income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the 1^st appellant wife of the deceased was only 28 yeas old at the time of the death of her husband and, therefore, the compensation for loss of consortium of 10,000/- is on the lower side. Likewise, for loss of love and affection of the minor child and parents, 10,000/- as compensation for love and affection is inadequate.

¶35

We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company as well.

¶36

M.A.C.A.667/07 - : 3 :-

¶37

Despite the fact that the appellants had produced Ext.A12 salary certificate and got the person, who issued the same to depose in support of the same, we are of opinion that in 1997, a manager of a liquor shop would not have got 6,000/per month as salary. But still, we are of opinion that 2500/- is too low as well. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix 3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Recalculating loss of dependency on that basis, the appellants would be entitled to compensation for loss of dependency of 3,84,000/- (3000 x 12 x 16 x 2/3) instead of 3,20,000/- with an enhancement of 64,000/-. under that head. Considering the age of the deceased, viz., 31 years and the age of the 1<sup>st</sup> appellant wife, viz, 28 years, we are inclined to award compensation for loss of consortium amounting to 15,000/granting a increase of 5000/-. Likewise, we are inclined to increase the compensation for loss of love and affection to 15,000/- granting an enhancement of 5000/-. Altogether, the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of 74,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

M.A.C.A.667/07 - : 4 :-

¶39

The said amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The 3^rd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit that amount also within two months.

¶40

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶41

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/sdk+ BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶43

///True copy///

¶44

P.A. to Judge

Lissie v. K.D.Kunjappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lissie v. K.D.Kunjappan

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 Palliyara Meethal Kumaran Vydiar

Krishnakumar Vs Prithvi Raj

State of Kerala Vs T.S. Yamuna

State of Kerala Vs Krishnan Nadar

Abu Fasil Vs K.K.Vijayakumar

Noushad, S/O. Muhammed Vs Ramakrishnan P.P.