Allowed

Sudhakumari and Others v. Govardhan Ragar and Others

Kerala HC6 Nov 2014MACA/1557/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of a road accident victim. The High Court held the original award too meagre, enhanced compensation across various heads including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and loss of affection, and granted a total additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 6,09,500 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till date of payment or recovery.

Sudhakumari and Others Vs Govardhan Ragar and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/15TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 1557 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 540/2007 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 16-05-2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. SUDHA KUMARI, W/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, THURUTHIVILA/THEKKATHIL HOUSE, THURTHIKARA MURI

¶9

KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. SUMA LEKSHMI, D/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, THURUTHIVILA/THEKKATHIL HOUSE, THURTHIKARA MURI KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, THURUTHIVILA/THEKKATHIL HOUSE, THURTHIKARA MURI

¶12

KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. KUTTAN PILLAI, THURUTHIVILA/THEKKATHIL HOUSE, THURTHIKARA MURI KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5. THANKAMMA AMMA, THURUTHIVILA/ THEKKATHIL HOUSE, THURTHIKARA MURI KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1. GOVARDHAN RAGAR, S/O.MUL CHAND, HATHOJ POLICE STATION, KALWAR, JAIPUR, PIN - 302 001.

¶18

MACA 1557/11

¶19

2. KULDEEP SINGH P.G., MALAKHERA, JAWALPUR, ALWAR DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN - 301 001.

¶20

3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL XV, 18 RABINDRA SARANI, PODDAR COURT KOLKATA - 700 001.

¶21

R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH R BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶22

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶24

.................................................................... M.A.C.A.No.1557 of 2011

¶25

.................................................................... Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2014.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶28

1.This appeal is by the parents, widow and children of one Vasudevan Pillai, who died at the age of 49 years in a road traffic accident on 15.10.2006. The appeal is only on the question of quantum of compensation.

¶29

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurer.

¶30

3.The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of 10,57,000/with interest thereon. Considering the material evidence on record and applying the relevant laws, we are of the view that the impugned award is too meagre. Ext.A4 salary certificate shows that the deceased was working in Gem Electro Mechanicals Private Limited since 02.07.1979 as machine setter and his monthly wages was 10,948.30, which included small components of

¶31

MACA 1557/11

¶32

-2-

¶33

conveyance allowance, soap allowance and HRA. Taking the basic pay, D.A. and production incentive and HRA into consideration, we deem it appropriate to take his monthly income at 10,000/-. In view of the fact that the age of the deceased was 49 years at the time of death, we fix compensation for determining loss of dependency on the basis of earnings at 13,000/- per month, considering the future prospects as well. This means that the amount 9,750 x 12 x 13 will represent the loss of dependency. This works out to 15,21,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of 10,000/- towards transport to the hospital and funeral expenses. Making reference to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir <u>Singh and Others</u> [(2013) 9 SCC 54], the learned counsel for the appellants argued that a minimum amount of 25,000/- has to be awarded towards funeral expenses. Ext.A7 evidences that an amount of `5,130/- was spent for lifting the human remains of the deceased person from Jaipur to Thiruvananthapuram. The deceased hailed from Kollam, which is the neighbouring district of

¶34

MACA 1557/11

¶35

-3-

¶36

Thiruvananthapuram. Taking all that into consideration, we enhance the compensation for transport to the hospital and funeral expenses to 25,000/-. The compensation awarded for pain and suffering is enhanced to 10,000/- from 5,000/-. The compensation for loss of consortium for the first appellant - wife, is enhanced to 40,000/- from 10,000/-. The compensation for loss of love and affection to the father and mother is enhanced at 10,000/- each and to the son and daughter at 20,000/- each. Thus a total amount of 60,000/- is payable as compensation for loss of love and affection. An amount of 10,000/- is fixed as compensation for loss of estate. An amount of 500/- is awarded as damages to clothing and articles. The total compensation as per this appellate award will be 16,66,500/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs sixty six thousand and five hundred only), that is 6,09,500/- (Rupees six lakhs nine thousand and five hundred only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37

In the result, this appeal is allowed granting the appellants

¶38

MACA 1557/11

¶39

-4-

¶40

enhancement of `6,09,500/- (Rupees six lakhs nine thousand and five hundred only) towards compensation with 9% interest per annum thereon from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment or recovery. The insurer is directed to comply with this

¶41

award within a period of two months from now.

¶42

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶43

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶44

Sudhakumari and Others v. Govardhan Ragar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakumari and Others v. Govardhan Ragar and Others

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

S.Dharmaraj Vs Jose v.Manjooran

Bapputty M. Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Chevayoor

N.C.Karunadas Vs the Ci of Police, Thanoor

Harikrishnan Vs v.K.Anand

Gracy Thomas Vs N.Radhakrishnan

Nisha Vs C.a.Davis and Another