Partly allowed

Sumathy v. K.M Aboo Kunju

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016RP/461/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this review petition corrected an arithmetic error in a previous damages award regarding the death of Sudhakaran. The court adjusted the total compensation payable from the insurer's liability, ordering the inclusion of an additional balance sum.

What did the court decide?

Directing that the claimants be entitled to a balance sum of Rs. 1,94,800/- with 9% interest from the date of the petition, to be paid within one month.

Sumathy Vs K.M Aboo Kunju — Insurance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 461 of 2016 IN MACA.1376/2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 1376/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-02-2016

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS :

¶8

SUMATHY, WIDOW OF LATE SUDHAKARAN, THAIKODATH HOUSE, NOCHIMA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶9

RADHIKA,

¶10

D/O. LATE SUDHAKARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, THAIKODATH HOUSE,

¶11

NOCHIMA P.O. ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶12

RETHI,

¶13

D/O. LATE SUDHAKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, THAIKODATH HOUSE,

¶14

NOCHIMA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶15

REJITHA,

¶16

D/O. LATE SUDHAKARAN, AGED 21 YEARS, THAIKODATH HOUSE,

¶17

NOCHIMA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶18

RAJEESH, SON OF LATE SUDHAKARAN, AGED 20 YEARS, THAIKODATH HOUSE,

¶19

NOCHIMA P.O. ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.M.ASLAM

¶21

RESPONDENTS :

¶22

K.M ABOOKUNJU SON OF MOHAMMED, VAYALKARA HOUSE, P.O. KUNNUKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, (OWNER OF JEEP NO.KRQ-8267) PIN- 683 524.

¶23

RP.No. 461 of 2016 IN MACA.1376/2006

¶24

BABU, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN, MOLLEPADATH HOUSE, NOCHIMA, ASHOKAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF JEEP NO.KRQ-8267) PIN- 683535.

¶25

M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, P.O.BOX XIV/709, KADAVATH SHOPPING COMPLEX, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA- 683 101.

¶26

BY SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶27

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶29

R.P.No.461 of 2016

¶30

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.1376 of 2006

¶32

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶35

This Review Petition arises from the verdict already passed by this Court on 29.2.2016 in M.A.C.A.No.1376/2006. The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the demise of the person by name Sudhakaran. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of 3,04,975/- which was rounded₹ to ₹3,05,000/- distributed under different heads. This Court found that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at ₹1,800/- and multiplier of 13 adopted were not correct and accordingly, we modified the same as ₹3,000/- and 11 respectively. The deduction effected by the Tribunal to an extent of 1/3^rd was also varied, making it clear that only 1/4^th should have been deducted towards the personal expenses. Thus, the total compensation payable in respect of 'loss of dependency' was fixed as ₹2,97,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of ₹1,87,200/-

¶36

R.P.No.461/2016 in M.A.C.A.No.1376/2006

¶37

¶38

under this head. After minusing the said amount, the balance payable comes to ₹1,09,800/- which came to be wrongly shown as ₹1,78,200/- as given in paragraph 8 of the verdict passed in the appeal. We passed some additional amounts as well in respect of the relevant heads as given in the subsequent portion, after extracting paragraph 9 of the award passed by the Tribunal, in paragraph 9 of the verdict passed in the appeal. These amounts come to a total of ₹85,000/- which has to be in addition to the balance amount payable towards loss of dependency. By virtue of an inadvertent mistake, the total balance compensation was shown only as ₹85,000/-. We find that there are errors apparent on the face of the record, which require to be corrected. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, we find that the total balance compensation payable comes to ₹1,94,800/- (₹1,09,800+85,000). The position in this regard is conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company as well.

¶39

R.P.No.461/2016 in M.A.C.A.No.1376/2006

¶40

Accordingly the verdict passed by this Court on 29.2.2016 in M.A.C.A.No.1376/2006 will stand modified; making it clear that the appellants/review petitioners will be entitled to get a balance sum of ₹1,94,800/- (Rupees One lakh Ninety four thousand eight hundred only) with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition. This shall be effected within a further period of one month.

¶41

The Review Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶43

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

¶45

True copy

¶46

P.A to Judge

Sumathy v. K.M Aboo Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathy v. K.M Aboo Kunju

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 K.Maniyan

State of Kerala Vs Rajamma

Faizy.a Vs Honey G.Alexander

R.C.Francis Paul Vs the General Manager, Southern Railway

Nnion of India Vs T.P.Sankaran

Sumini Catherine Vs State of Kerala