Partly allowed

Unnikrishnan Namboothiri v. Abdulgafoor

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014MACA/589/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, allowed the appeal in part. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant, a blind husband, by increasing amounts for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, finding the original awards insufficient.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹3,04,000/- towards loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses with interest at 7% per annum.

Unnikrishnan Namboothiri Vs Abdulgafoor — Insurance | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶6

MACA.No. 589 of 2009 (C)

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2423/2004 of Prl.M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 03-09-2008

¶8

APPELLANT : PETITIONER :

¶9

UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KORAMBATTA ILLOM, KRIPA NIVAS, POOLAKKODE VILLAGE, CHEROOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN

¶11

SMT.T.LAKSHMI SRI.SANEESH KUMAR.K.

¶12

RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS :

¶13

ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.ABDULLA KOYA, PALLIYEDATH HOUSE, P.O.PARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

P.JAYADEVAN, S/O,JAYAPALAN, POYILIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURACE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-II, PROMOD BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

UNNIKKALI ANTHARJANAM, * (EXPIRED) AGED 79 YEARS, W/O.LATE SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AYAKKATTU MANA, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, PULLAZHI DESOM, P.O.PULLAZHI , THRISSUR -12.

¶17

(It is declared at the risk of the appellant that the legal heirs of the deceased 4^th respondent are unnecessary parties and hence impleadment of the legal heirs is not necessary vide order dtd.28/3/2014 in I.A.792/14 in MACA.589/09.)

¶18

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R3 - BY ADV.SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

HARUN-UL-RASHID & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.589 of 2009

¶23

Dated this the 04^th day of June, 2014

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶26

The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 3/9/2008 in O.P.(MV)No.2423 of 2004 on the file of the Prl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claimant as applicant claims ₹8,00,000/- for the death of his wife, who met with an accident occurred on 20/9/2004. The Tribunal passed award allowing the claimant to realise ₹2,16,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from 13/12/2004. The appeal is preferred challenging the quantum of compensation. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition.

¶27

The deceased is the wife of the claimant. The claimant is a blind person. He is working in a bank. Since he is blind, he always availed the service of his wife for his to and fro journey to the bank and for other needs. The accident happened at about 9.25 a.m. on 20/9/2004. On that day both

¶28

M.A.C.A.No.589/2009

¶29

¶30

of them boarded in a bus through the rear side. The petitioner was seated in the bus. Thereafter his wife got down to enter into the bus through the front door and while she was boarding into the bus through front door, it moved and she fell down on the road. The back wheel of the bus ran over her body and she met with instantaneous death. It is stated that the petitioner was a dependent on the deceased.

¶31

The accident is not disputed seriously by the 3^rd respondent company, which alone contested the case.

¶32

The applicant claims that he is totally blind and he cannot move without the assistance of his wife. Claimant is working as a typist-cum-clerk in a bank. The Tribunal is also convinced that he cannot move without the assistance of some other person. The Tribunal observed that, naturally the claimant would get all the required help from his wife as they have no children. The claimant is aged 38 and the deceased wife is aged 35. The Tribunal observed that the significant aspect is that, the claimant has to continue his job for which he

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.589/2009

¶34

¶35

has to seek a helper. The Tribunal fixed notional annual income at ₹18,000/- in the absence of any proof regarding the actual income. The accident occurred on 20/9/2004. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004 and further fact that the deceased is a lady aged only 35 capable of earning income, we are of the view that notional income ₹1,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. We think that the notional income can be re-fixed as ₹3,500/- monthly. Therefore loss of dependency following the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 16%. Following the same multiplier we apply monthly income at ₹3,500/-. The claimant is entitled to compensation of ₹4,48,000/- towards the loss of dependency. Deducting ₹1,92,000/- awarded, the claimant is entitled to ₹2,56,000/- under this head. Towards loss of consortium also, court below failed to award adequate compensation. Only ₹10,000/- was awarded. Considering the fact that the parties are middle aged couple living together and helping each other through out, we do not think that

¶36

M.A.C.A.No.589/2009

¶37

¶38

₹10,000/- awarded would serve the purpose, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹50,000/-. Deducting ₹10,000/- awarded, the claimant is entitled to ₹40,000/-. Then, for funeral expenses also the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹2,000/-. We re-fix the compensation under this head as ₹10,000/-. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹3,04,000/-.

¶39

The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is modified. The appellant/claimant is allowed to realise ₹3,04,000/- as additional compensation with interest @ 7% per annum from 13/12/2004 as allowed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from today.

¶40

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

¶41

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶42

skj

¶43

True copy P.A to Judge

Unnikrishnan Namboothiri v. Abdulgafoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan Namboothiri v. Abdulgafoor

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

Nalini Vs State of Kerala

Kunju Beepathu Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Joseph Vs T.v.Ouseph

Marykutty Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Sindhu K.G.

Elsy Joseph and Others Vs Liji Joseph and Others