Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Jessy, W/O.Late Veerendrakumar

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020MFA (ECC)/138/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal against an award fixing Rs.8,06,640/- compensation for a cleaner cum loading worker. The Court upheld the Commissioner's reliance on government-notified minimum wages as the basis for compensation, rejecting the insurer's claim based on lack of evidence for actual income since the widow admitted earnings exceeded minimums.

What the court decided

AI extract

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

MFA.No.138 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WC 45/2011 DATED 13.03.2013 OF W.C.C.,KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT/SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶8

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶9

KOZHIKODE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶12

1 JESSY, W/O.LATE VEERENDRAKUMAR KAIPPURATHKANDI HOUSE, UNNIKULAM.P.O., POONOOR, KOZHIKODE -673 574.

¶13

2 DAKSHAYANI, W/O.NARAYANAN, KAIPPURATHKANDI HOUSE, UNNIKULAM.P.O., POONOOR, KOZHIKODE -673 574.

¶14

3 SREENANDU (MINOR) S/O.LATE VEERENDRAKUMAR,KAIPPURATHKANDI HOUSE, UNNIKULAM.P.O., POONOOR, KOZHIKODE -673 574.

¶15

4 SREENANDANA (MINOR) D/O.LATE VEERENDRAKUMAR,KAIPPURATHKANDI HOUSE, UNNIKULAM.P.O., POONOOR, KOZHIKODE -673 574.

¶16

M.F.A.(WCC)NO.138 of 2013

¶17

:-2-:

¶18

5 MUHAMMED ISMAIL MAKKI.A.P., S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, ANAPPARAKKAL HOUSE, KANTHAPURAM, UNNIKULAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 574. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT).

¶19

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN R1-4 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶20

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

M.F.A.(WCC)NO.138 of 2013

¶22

:-3-:

¶23

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2020

¶24

The second opposite party in W.C.No.45/2011,

¶25

Insurance Company is the appellant in this matter.

¶26

As per the impugned award, the appellant

¶27

was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,06,640/- with interest as compensation payable for death of

¶28

Sri.Veerendrakumar who was employed as cleaner cum loading worker in a lorry bearing registration No.KL-56/B-7560 owned by the 1^st respondent,

¶29

employer.

¶30

proceedings before the Commissioner. The appellant contested the case admitting the insurance of the vehicle. The learned Commissioner after examining

¶31

the evidence on record and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased was cleaner cum

¶32

loading worker employed by the 1^st respondent

¶33

earning a minimum monthly income of Rs.8,000/-.

¶34

The sole contention raised by the

¶35

M.F.A.(WCC)NO.138 of 2013

¶36

:-4-:

¶37

appellant's counsel in this appeal is that the monthly income was wrongly assessed by the Commissioner and therefore the compensation awarded requires substantial modification in that respect.

¶38

I heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

appellant as well as the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

¶40

The impugned order shows that the evidence given by the widow of the deceased as to the income earned by her husband was taken into account by the Commissioner for fixing the compensation. According to the Commissioner, the minimum wages payable to a cleaner cum loading worker was Rs.8,000/- as per the notification issued by the Government dated 31.5.2010. This notification was relied on in the impugned order also. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner should not have relied on the notification when there was

¶41

no convincing evidence of the actual income the deceased was earning.

¶42

M.F.A.(WCC)NO.138 of 2013

¶43

:-5-:

¶44

After hearing both sides, I am of the

¶45

opinion that once the Government has fixed the

¶46

minimum wages irrespective of the actual monthly income earned by the worker, the compensation ought to be fixed on the notified minimum wages. Even otherwise also AW1, the widow of the deceased also testified in clear terms that her husband was earning more than the minimum wages fixed by law. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding entered into by the Commissioner. No other arguments have been raised in this appeal by the appellant's counsel.

¶47

In the result, appeal fails and it is

¶48

dismissed.

¶49

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE

¶52

ami/

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Jessy, W/O.Late Veerendrakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Jessy, W/O.Late Veerendrakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Thomas Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Co. Ltd.

Lena Rodrigues and Others Vs Philip Neri Rodrigues and Others

Karun Varghese Mathew Vs Housing Development Finance Cooperation(in Short Hdfc)

Jithu Kuttichakku, Vs Common Man Hits and Loans Private Ltd.

P.N.Joy Vs Mythily

Abida Vs Abdul Azeez