Allowed

Mundasseri Kadeeja v. Manchappulath Mohammed Shareef

Kerala HC16 Oct 2018MACA/793/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident claims appeal, holding the Tribunal's compensation award abysmally low. The Court refixed the notional income, enhanced funeral, dependency, and loss of consortium damages, ordering an additional Rs. 1,93,000 to be paid by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 1,93,000 to be paid by the insurer within one month.

Mundasseri Kadeeja Vs Manchappulath Mohammed Shareef — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 24TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 793 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO. 1838/2001 of M.A.C.T., MANJERI DATED 18-11-2005

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

1 MUNDASSERI KADEEJA

¶9

W/O. MOIDEEN @ BAPPU, MUYALTHODIKA HOUSE,, KOLONY ROAD, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

2 JAMEELA, D/O. MOIDEEN DO. DO.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MANCHAPPULATH MOHAMMED SHAREEF S/O. MAMMUNNI, AKKARATHODI HOUSE,, MUSLIYARANGADI, NADIYIRUPPU P.O.,, MALAPPURAM DIST. (DRIVER)

¶14

2 K.K.HUSSAIN, TREASURER MAZJIDUL THENSU COMMITTEE,, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. (OWNER)

¶15

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the

¶20

Tribunal is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal.

¶21

MACA.No. 793 of 2006

¶22

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as

¶24

well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

¶25

The deceased was proceeding along the road on 10.12.1998 [wrongly described as 10.12.1992 in the second paragraph of the Award and the Appeal memorandum as conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant] when he was knocked down by an autorikshaw driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the 3^rd respondent. Pursuant to the serious injuries sustained, the deceased passed away, which led to the claim petition before the Tribunal, preferred by the widow and daughter of the deceased.

¶26

Owner and driver did not contest the matter and

¶27

hence were set ex parte. The third respondent Insurance Company admitted the existence of valid policy, though negligence and quantum were disputed. The first appellant/first claimant was examined as PW1 and the documentary evidence adduced consists of Exhibits A1 to A4. From the side of the respondent Insurance Company, Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. Based on the available materials on record, the Tribunal fixed

¶28

MACA.No. 793 of 2006

¶29

¶30

the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorikshaw.

¶31

The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was a general worker and was having a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, which was refused to be accepted by the Tribunal for want of clear evidence, but for reckoning only notional income of Rs.15000/- per annum. Reckoning the age of the deceased as 43 years, amounts were awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, as given in paragraph 7, in the following terms :

¶32

Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,000.00 Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 Loss of estate : Rs. 3,500.00 Loss of consortium : Rs. 5,000.00 Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of dependency [15000x15x2/3] : Rs.1,50,000.00 TOTAL : Rs.1,71,500.00

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant submits

¶34

that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are abysmally on the lower side. This Court finds considerable force

¶35

MACA.No. 793 of 2006

¶36

¶37

in the said submission. Since the accident was in the

¶38

year 1998 and since the deceased was maintaining a family consisting of wife and daughter and also the future prospects, this Court finds it appropriate to refix the notional income adopted by the Tribunal reckoning it as Rs.30,000/- p.a. Adopting the multiplier of '15' and deducting 1/3^rd towards the

¶39

personal expenses, dependency compensation will come to Rs. 3,00,000/- [30000 x 2/3 x 15]. After deducting the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-already awarded by the Tribunal, the balance compensation payable will come to Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, this Court finds it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.10000/- under this head, thus resulting in a balance compensation payable under this head Rs.8000/ -. Under the head loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5000/-. Considering the date of accident, money value and such other attendant circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.20000/- under this

¶40

head, thus resulting a balance sum of Rs.15000/-. No amount has been awarded towards the loss of love and

¶41

MACA.No. 793 of 2006

¶42

¶43

affection. In respect of the second claimant, who is daughter of the deceased, this Court finds it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.20000/- under this head as well. Thus the additional compensation payable will come to Rs.1,93,000/- [Rupees One lakh Ninety three thousand only] , which shall be satisfied with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till satisfaction. The amount as above shall be satisfied by the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that by virtue of the violation of statutory condition, the right of recovery is granted to the 3^rd respondent to have the same recovered from the 2^nd respondent owner in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.

¶44

Appeal stands allowed to the said extent.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

kmd

Mundasseri Kadeeja v. Manchappulath Mohammed Shareef

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundasseri Kadeeja v. Manchappulath Mohammed Shareef

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

Rosamma & Others Vs Eliyamma & Others

Ananthakrishnan Vs Lishil A.M.

Muhammed Manzoor Vs S.Rajan and Another

P.M.Sunny Vs Sadanandan

Raju Vs Jayakumar P.

Prabhakaran Vs Margret