Allowed

Anithakumari v. Raveendran

Kerala HC6 Jun 2018MACA/262/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the widow and son of a deceased motorcyclist against a lorry driver and insurer. The court adjusted notional income, applied Supreme Court guidelines for future prospects and loss of consortium, and recalculated heads like funeral expenses and love and affection.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 70,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Anithakumari Vs Raveendran — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 262 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 115/2006 MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA DATED 21.8.2014

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS

¶8

1 ANITHAKUMARI MADLEY ROAD, IIND FLOOR, T.NAGAR, MADRAS NOW RESIDING AT VISHNU VIHAR, NANGAIRKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD.

¶9

2 VISHNU K.MOHANAN MADLEY ROAD, IIND FLOOR, T.NAGAR, MADRAS NOW RESIDING AT VISHNU VIHAR, NANGAIRKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SMT.PARVATHY NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. RAVEENDRAN RAGHINILAYAM (RAGHIYALAYAM) KADAVOOR MURI, KARIPUZHA P.O., PIN - 690 109.

¶13

2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI R2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

A.M.BABU, J.

¶17

.......................................... M.A.C.A.No.262 of 2015

¶18

........................................... Dated 6^th day of June, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

It was on 28.8.2005 the accident. A person by name Mohanan died in the accident. He was 53 years old then. He was employed abroad. His widow and son are the claimants. Mohanan who was riding a motor cycle was knocked down by a lorry driven and owned by the first respondent. The accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶21

Heard Sri.George Varghese and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent respectively.

¶22

Mohanan was admittedly employed abroad. Ext A9 is his passport. It is entered therein that he was working as an electrician in UAE. The claimants contended that Mohanan had a monthly income equal to Rs 20,000/-. As held in Valsamma vs Biju Jose (2014 (1) KLT 10) for fixing the compensation the

¶23

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.262 of 2015

¶25

income of a person employed abroad will have to be assessed in the context of Indian standards. Therefore the claim of Rs 20,000/- as such cannot be accepted, particularly in the absence of any evidence. The tribunal had taken a notional income of Rs 5,000/- . That was certainly on the lower side. The accident was in 2005. Mohanan was an electrician, a skilled worker. Therefore his income in 2005 can be taken as Rs 7,500/-.

¶26

As the notional income is refixed, the compensation for loss of dependency shall be reworked. In view of the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi (2017 (5) KHC 350) 10% of the monthly income should be added towards the future prospects in the case of persons age between 50 and 60 years. As the number of dependents is two, what is to be deducted considering the personal expenses is one-third. The entitlement of the appellants as compensation for loss of dependency comes to Rs 7,26,000/- (7,500 + 10% = 8,250 – 1/3^rd of it = 5,500; 5,500 x 12 x 11 = 7,26,000). The amount of Rs 5,06,000/- awarded by the tribunal shall be deducted. The enhancement under the said head is Rs 2,20,000/-.

¶27

The tribunal did not award any compensation for loss

¶28

¶29

M.A.C.A.No.262 of 2015

¶30

of estate. The amount to be awarded in the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) is Rs 15,000/-. The appellants are entitled to the said amount.

¶31

The death of Mohanan was not instantaneous. He survived for sometime after the accident. He was taken to a hospital and was given first aid there. From there he was taken to another hospital, but he died on the way. Considering the duration of his life after the accident, I find it appropriate to hike the compensation for pain and sufferings by Rs 4,000/-.

¶32

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the amounts awarded as compensation by the tribunal under certain heads were on the higher side. The amount which can be awarded as funeral expenses shall be Rs 15,000/- and as compensation to the widow for loss of consortium shall be Rs 40,000/- as held by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). But the tribunal awarded Rs 25,000/- towards ambulance charges, funeral expenses, transportation charges, damage to clothing and other articles. There has been an excess by Rs 9,000/- inasmuch as I retain Rs 1,000/- as the ambulance charges et cetera . The compensation for loss of consortium

¶33

¶34

M.A.C.A.No.262 of 2015

¶35

awarded by the tribunal is excess by Rs 60,000/-. The same shall be deducted. The tribunal awarded Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation for love and affection. The maximum amount that can be awarded is Rs 1,00,000/-. It is so held by a division bench of this court in Jyni vs Raphel P.T (2016 (2) KHC 870). Rs 1,00,000/- shall be deducted. The total deductions under three heads referred to above come to Rs 1,69,000/-.

¶36

The appellants are entitled to enhancement under three heads, namely, compensation for loss of dependency, compensation for loss of estate and compensation for pain and sufferings. The total enhancement comes to Rs 2,39,000/(2,20,000 + 15,000 + 4,000). From the said figure, Rs 1,69,000/shall be deducted. The balance Rs 70,000/- is the enhancement to which are the appellants entitled.

¶37

The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The appellants are awarded Rs 70,000/- (seventy thousand only) as enhancement in compensation. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal to the date of deposit of the enhanced compensation before it. The second respondent shall

¶38

¶39

M.A.C.A.No.262 of 2015

¶40

deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest and proportionate costs before the tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

sd/-

¶42

A.M.BABU Judge

¶43

sks/06.06.2018

Anithakumari v. Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anithakumari v. Raveendran

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

Udayakumar Vs the Excise Inspector

Shameer.P, Vs Shanavas.P.K

Sajeesh Vs U.K.Manoj Kumar

Vikas V.V. Vs State of Kerala

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs T. Pushpa

Suma Balan Vs Johny M.C.