Allowed

Chungappalli Velayudhan & Another v. K.K.Abdul Azeez and Others

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018MACA/1681/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, holding that the multiplier for loss of dependency must be determined by the deceased's age (18), not the mother's. The Court re-fixed the notional income at Rs. 2,500 per month with a 50% family contribution, awarded Rs. 2,28,000 as additional compensation with 7.5% interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 2,28,000 awarded with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of the petition.

Chungappalli Velayudhan & Another Vs K.K.Abdul Azeez… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1681 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1119/2000 of M.A.C.T., MANJERI DATED 30-04-2005

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 CHUNGAPPALLI VELAYUDHAN S/O.CHOZHIKUTTY, CHUNGAPPALLI HOUSE,, MUNDAKKODE, PAZHAMALLOOR, MALAPPURAM 676 605.

¶9

2 P.DEVAKI W/O.CHUNGAPPALLI VELAYUDHAN CHUNGAPPALLI HOUSE,MUNDAKODE, PAZHAMALOOR,, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & SUPPL.RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 :

¶12

1 K.K.ABDUL AZEEZ , S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KUZHIMATTIKALATHIL HOUSE,MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCHOFFICE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3 HUSSAIN.K. S/O.ALAVI , KUTTIL HOUSE VENGARA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4 K.P.ABDULLA UNNI HAJI S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, ANEEZA MANZIL, PANDIKKAD ROAD,, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

M.A.C.A.No. 1681 of 2006

¶17

¶18

5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. MANJERI.

¶19

6 M.P.SAJI S/O.MOHANAN, MARATH HOUSE DOWN HILL P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

7 V.K.KRISHNADAS, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN REMYA NIVAS, VADAKKATHODIYIL, MELMURI,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

8 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. TIRUR.

¶22

BY ADVS. SMT.SARAH SALVY SRI.K.P.MUJEEB SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Inadequacy of compensation granted by the Tribunal

¶26

in respect of the deceased is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company.

¶29

M.A.C.A.No. 1681 of 2006

¶30

¶31

The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider

¶32

on a motor cycle (bearing No.KL.10/G.392) on 12.02.1999,when the autorickshaw owned and driven by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent dashed against the motor cycle, throwing the pillion rider down on the road; who was run over by a

¶33

bus leading to fatal injuries, ultimately to his death. This was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition by the parents.

¶34

The rider of the motor cycle had sustained

¶35

some injuries, who had also approached the Tribunal by filing a claim petition and both the cases were tried together. The existence of a valid policy was conceded by the respondent insurance company. But violation of the policy/statutory conditions was pointed out with reference to the absence of authorisation to the driver of the autorickshaw to have driven the vehicle; more so when he himself was the owner.

¶36

After analysing the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was

¶37

M.A.C.A.No. 1681 of 2006

¶38

¶39

solely due to the negligence on the part of the ownercum-driver of the autorickshaw and proceeded to fix the

¶40

compensation. Though there was a claim that the deceased was aged 24 years and working as a painter having a monthly income of Rs.5000/-, the Tribunal reckoned only Rs.1500/- as the notional income. Initially, applying the multiplier of '17', a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency, besides awarding Rs.1000/- towards transportation to hospital and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, in turn granting a total of Rs.1.73 lakhs. On filing a Review Petition by the Insurance Company, stating that the multiplier had to be chosen with reference to the age of the mother, the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency came to be further reduced to Rs.1,10,000/-, adopting the multiplier of '11', which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶41

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds

¶42

that the appropriate multiplier has to be fixed with reference to the age of the deceased, as per the

¶43

M.A.C.A.No. 1681 of 2006

¶44

¶45

settled position of law and as such, it should have been '18' and not '17' or '11'. It is ordered accordingly. This Court is also of the view that the annual income reckoned by the Tribunal is quite meagre.Considering the probable income as on the date of accident and also in view of age of the deceased as '24' years, being an able bodied youth, this Court finds it appropriate to have it re-fixed as Rs.2500/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, only 50% could be considered as contribution to the family. On re-working the 'loss of dependency', it comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-(2500 x 12 x 50/100 x 18). Thus a balance sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ - is payable under this head. It is seen that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of love and affection', 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of estate'. A sum of Rs.10000/each is awarded towards loss of estate and pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.40000 /- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. A further sum of Rs.8000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses in addition to the

¶46

M.A.C.A.No. 1681 of 2006

¶47

¶48

amount awarded by the Tribunal, in addition to the

¶49

amount awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total additional compensation payable comes to Rs.2,28,000/-

¶50

(Rupees two lakhs and twenty eight thousand 0nly) . The

¶51

said amount shall be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till satisfaction.

¶52

The respondent Insurance Company shall deposit

¶53

the due amount before the Tribunal within one month and after satisfying the same, the respondent Insurance Company will be at liberty to have it recovered from the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the

¶54

autorickshaw, in view of the liberty granted by the Tribunal, as per the award under challenge.

¶55

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶56

/true copy/

¶57

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶58

Chungappalli Velayudhan & Another v. K.K.Abdul Azeez and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chungappalli Velayudhan & Another v. K.K.Abdul Azeez and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rafeeq T. Vs P.T.Aboobacker

Ummachu Vs P.D.Sarangadharan

Fr.Joy Vaidyakkaran, Father Superior, Vs Preetha Sudheer and Others

Elizabeth Mariya Vs Paul Murickan

Joji Joseph @ Wilson Vs Paul Murickan

B.Sarada Kunjamma Vs K.K.Siddique and Others