Partly allowed

Sreedharan Nambiar & Another v. Kamarunisa & Others

Kerala HC4 Feb 2013MACA/945/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation petition filed by the deceased's parents. The Court held that the parents are not dependants as the deceased was a married woman with a living husband and the father is gainfully employed, thus denying the claim. However, the order directing them to pay costs in the earlier proceedings was deleted.

What did the court decide?

Deleted the order of the Tribunal directing the appellants to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- in the dismissed claim petition. Dismissed the appeal on other grounds.

Sreedharan Nambiar & Another Vs Kamarunisa & Others — 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 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/15TH MAGHA 1934

¶6

MACA.No. 945 of 2009 ( )

¶7

-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.589/2006 of MACT VADAKARA DATED 09-022009

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1. SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN - NAMBIAR,AGED 52 YEARS,RESIDING AT THODUVAYIL

¶10

HOUSE,SANTHINAGAR,P.O. VELOM PIN-673508

¶11

VIA KUTTIADY,VELOM AMSOM,CHERUKUNNU DESOM

¶12

VADAKARA TALUK.

¶13

2. SAROJINI AMMA, W/O. SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 42 YEARS,RESIDIGN AT THODUVAYIL HOUSE,P.O.VELOM PIN-673508 VIA KUTTIADY,VELOM AMSOM,CHERUKUNNU DESOM VADAKARA TALUK.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.C.VALSALAN

¶15

SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1. KAMARUNISA, W/O. T.UMMER RESIDING AT THATTARACKAL HOUSE,P.O.PARAMBIL PIN 673012. VIA MARIKUNNU,KOZHIKODE TALUK (OWNER OF CAR NO.KL.13 D 3765)

¶18

2. SAJEESH KUMAR,S/O.LATE BALAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS,RESIDING AT KADAMBATTIL HOUSE P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM PIN 673571,KOZHIKODE TALUK (DRIVER OF CAR NO.KL 13 D 3765 DL.NO.6495/2004 D K )

¶19

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,P.B.NO.811 NOOR COMPLED NEAR ARAYIDATHPALAM,MYOOR ROAD P.O. CALICUT - 4,PIN 673 004,(INSURER OF CAR NO. KL 13 D 3765,POLICE NO.571300/31/04/671526 VALID FROM 28.01.2005 TO 27.01.2006)

¶20

R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY R2 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU J.THADIKKAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶21

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

S.SIRI JAGAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

M.A.C.A.No. 945 of 2009

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2013

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Siri Jagan, J.

¶29

The appellants are the parents of deceased Umadevi, who died in a motor accident on account of 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 O.P. (M.V).No.589/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, claiming compensation for the death of their daughter. On the ground that Umadevi was a married woman and, therefore, the appellants are not legal heirs of Umadevi, the claim petition was dismissed with a costs of ` 5,000/- payable to the 3^rd respondent. That award is under challenge in this M.A.C.A. The contention of the appellants is that since it is their daughter who died in the accident, they are entitled to maintain the claim petition for compensation.

¶30

We have heard the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also.

¶31

Although legal heirs also may be entitled to claim

¶32

M.A.C.A.945/09 - : 2 :-

¶33

compensation, that can only be in their capacity as dependents. Therefore, claimants in a motor accidents claim should essentially prove that they were dependants of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a married woman. Her husband is living. It is also admitted that the 1^st appellant is gainfully employed. So naturally, the 2^nd appellant, who is the wife of the 1^st appellant, would be dependent on the 1^st appellant. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the appellants are dependents entitled to claim compensation for the death of Umadevi, although Umadevi was their daughter. Therefore, we are of opinion that the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation for the death of Umadevi. But we delete the order of the Tribunal directing the appellants to pay costs in the O.P.(M.V).

¶34

The appellants also challenge the direction of the Tribunal to pay balance court fee of ` 9,373/-, which the appellants have not paid. We do not find any infirmity in the direction insofar as the appellants have filed the O.P.(M.V)., on which, they are liable to pay court fee as well. Once O.P.(M.V). is dismissed on merits, they cannot take the stand that they are not liable to pay balance court fee, since the O.P.(M.V) was

¶35

M.A.C.A.945/09 - : 3 :-

¶36

adjudicated on merits. In the above circumstances, but for deleting the direction to pay costs, the appeal is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶38

Sd/sdk+ BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶39

///True copy///

¶40

P.A. to Judge

Sreedharan Nambiar & Another v. Kamarunisa & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedharan Nambiar & Another v. Kamarunisa & Others

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

Janaki Amma Anandabai Amma Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shafeek @ Muhammed Shafi @ Shafeek Vs C.T.Davis

N.Jayadevan Vs State of Kerala and Another