Allowed

Revamma @ Rema v. Udayakumar & Others

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018MACA/1935/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal filed by the dependents of a deceased employee as inadequate compensation by the Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation based on the deceased's income, loss of love and affection for children, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, ordering the insurance company to pay a total additional sum of Rs. 4,13,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company to pay additional compensation of Rs. 4,13,000 plus interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Revamma @ Rema Vs Udayakumar & Others — Insurance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1935 of 2010

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 328/2004 of MACT ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 REVAMMA @ REMA, W/O.LATE SURENDRA PANICKER, 'USHAS',, CHERTHALA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.9,, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2 KANNAN, S/O.LATE SURENDRA PANICKER 'USHAS', CHERTHALA SOUTH PANCHAYATH,, WARD NO.9, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

3 SMITHA PANICKER, D/O.LATE SURENDRA PANICKER, 'USHAS',, CHERTHALA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.9,, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.K.UNNIKRISHNA KURUP SRI.V.S.BHASKARAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 UDAYAKUMAR, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA,, PIN - 688 550.

¶15

2 T.T.SAJAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN THAIKKOOTTATHIL, EZHUPUNNA P.O.,, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 548.

¶16

3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. 57 THIRUVI-KA-INDL.ESTATE, GUINDY P.O., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688 005.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 1935/10

JUDGMENT

The grievance is with regard to the

¶23

inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

The first appellant is the widow of the

¶25

deceased, by name Surendra Panicker, while the other appellants are the son and daughter, who were parties before the Tribunal in filing the claim petition, joining hands with the mother of the deceased who is no more and hence not made party to this appeal.

¶26

The deceased was proceeding on a bicycle on 03.12.2003, from north to south along the NH 47, when the offending bus insured by the 3^rd respondent insurance company, owned and driven by

¶27

the respondents 1 and 2, came from behind (in the

¶28

same direction) and knocked him down, causing fatal injuries, which led to his death.

¶29

The claim petition was mainly contested

¶30

by the insurance company. The evidence adduced

¶31

before the Tribunal consists of the oral

¶32

MACA 1935/10

¶33

¶34

testimony of PW1, the employer of the deceased and Exts.A1 to A12. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondent insurance company.

¶35

Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal awarded amounts under different heads, granting a total sum of Rs.3,38,000/- in the following terms:

¶36

Compensation	for the pecuniary	Rs. 3,00,000/-
loss caused	to the petitioners
due to the Panicker	death of Surendra
Compensation and affectio	for loss of love n	Rs. 10,000/-
Compensation consortium petitioner	for loss of to the first	Rs. 10,000/-
Compensation suffering	for pain and	Rs. 10,000/-
Compensation incidental e	for medical and xpenses	Rs. 2,000/-
Ambulance ch	arge	Rs. 3,000/-
Funeral Expe	nses	Rs. 3,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 3,38,000/-

¶37

MACA 1935/10

¶38

¶39

The said amount has been ordered to be

¶40

satisfied with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

¶41

annum which is stated as inadequate and hence the appeal.

¶42

points out that a specific claim was raised, that

¶43

the deceased was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as salary and Rs.1,500/- as batta as disclosed from A7 certificate, correctness of which was asserted by the employer when examined

¶44

as PW1. Despite this, only a meagre sum of Rs.2,500/- was reckoned by the Tribunal, which requires to be enhanced. There is no dispute of

¶45

the fact that evidence was adduced by the appellants/claimants in support of their claim as to the monthly income. Considering these aspects, this Court finds that there was no

¶46

reason to have the certified income claimed by

¶47

the claimants to be reduced by the Tribunal. By virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court at

¶48

different points of time, this Court finds it

¶49

MACA 1935/10

¶50

¶51

appropriate to add the batta as well, to the

¶52

monthly salary and reckon a total sum of

¶53

Rs.5,500/- as the monthly income for awarding a

¶54

compensation.

¶55

On re-fixing the compensation as above, adopting a multiplier of '14' (based on the age of the deceased as 44 years), the dependency

¶56

compensation comes to 5,500x12x2/3x14=6,16,000/-.

¶57

After giving credit to the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

¶58

awarded by the Tribunal, the balance payable comes to Rs. 3,16,000/-.

¶59

10,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of consortium' to the 1^st petitioner. By virtue of a law declared by the larger bench of Supreme Court reported in National Insurance

¶60

Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (5) KHC 350] it has to be Rs.40,000/- and as such a

¶61

further sum of Rs.30,000/- is required to be paid. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

¶62

towards loss of love and affection. It is true

¶63

MACA 1935/10

¶64

¶65

that no separate compensation has been awarded by the larger Bench under the above head in the case cited supra. But by virtue of the position made clear by the Supreme Court subsequently, defining the term 'consortium', segregating the same into 3 different compartments, this Court is of the view that the children of the deceased are also

¶66

entitled to get compensation for love and

¶67

affection. In the said circumstances, a further sum of Rs.40,000/ - is awarded as payable by the 3^rd respondent insurance company; under this head.

¶68

The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, which has to be raised to Rs.15,000/-, thus resulting in a deficit of Rs.12,000/- . No amount has been

¶69

awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of estate', which is payable to an extent of Rs.15,000/- as per the binding precedents. It is awarded

¶70

accordingly. Thus, the total additional compensation payable comes to Rs. 4,13,000/(Rupees Four lakhs and thirteen thousand only)

¶71

MACA 1935/10

¶72

¶73

which requires to be satisfied with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till satisfaction, except for the period of 590 days covered by the delay, in filing the appeal. Since the policy is admitted and the insurance company is liable to satisfy the amount, the amount due shall be deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.

¶74

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶75

SD/-

¶76

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶77

JUDGE

¶78

Revamma @ Rema v. Udayakumar & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revamma @ Rema v. Udayakumar & 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

Gopalan Vs T.C.Devarajan

Sumathy Vs T.C.Devarajan

Krishna Kumar Vs M.Assu and Others

Velayudhan Vs M.a.Lohithakshan

Bose @ Chandrabose Vs the President Kadappuram-Manthala & Ors.

L.G.Sreekala Vs Jabbar Alikunju