Allowed

Minimol & Others v. Ottakunnummal Byju & Others

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022MACA/1103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident death case. It corrected the assessment of monthly income, applied appropriate percentages for future prospects and personal expenditure, and increased awards for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, ordering the insurer to pay an additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation payable additionally is Rs.9,03,964/- along with previously awarded sum with interest.

Minimol & Others Vs Ottakunnummal Byju & Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1103 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2010 IN OP(MV)NO.795/2007 OF THE MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:-

¶9

1MINIMOL, W/O PALLIYALIL CHANDRAN,
PALLIYALIL HOUSE, PANNIKKODE P.O., KODIYATHUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

2KRISHNA PRIYA ALIAS PRIYA – MINOR (DAUGHTER OF THE
DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER- GUARDIAN,
THE FIRST APPELLANT.
3JITHU ALIAS PREEJITH – MINOR (SON OF THE
DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER - GUARDIAN,
THE FIRST APPELLANT.
4RAMAN, S/O. KEERANKUTTY,
PALLIYALIL HOUSE, PANNIKKODE P.O., KODIYATHUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
5ITTIAYI W/O. RAMAN,
PALLIYALIL HOUSE, PANNIKKODE P.O., KODIYATHUR,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR
 SRI.RAKESH K.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-

¶13

1OTTAKKUNNUMMAL BYJU,
S/O GOPALAN, KEEZHUPARAMBA, SANTHI NAGAR,
PATHANAPURAM P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676 121.

¶14

2P.K.SANTHOSH S/O. KUTTAPPAN
PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, PALLIKUTH P.O.,
NILAMBUR TALUK,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 334.
3THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MANJERI, PIN-676 121.

¶15

R3 BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1103 of 2011

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 14th day of October, 2022

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 28.10.2010 in O.P.(M.V)No.795/2007.

¶22

For the sake of clarity, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and respondents in accordance with their status in the Orinigal Petition.

¶23

The petitioners before the Tribunal are legal heirs of one Mr.Chandran who died in a motor accident occurred at 9.30 p.m. on 27.12.2006. He was a pedestrian and was knocked down by a motorcycle at Keezhuparamba. He sustained serious injuries and succumbed to those at the spot itself. His legal heirs filed the Original Petition seeking for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. It was alleged that the rider of the motorcycle who was arrayed as the 1^st respondent has caused the accident by his rash and negligent riding. The rider, owner and insurer of the motor cycle were arrayed as

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.1103 of 2011

¶25

¶26

respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition seeking compensation. Though notice was served on the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, they entered appearance through a counsel but did not contest the Original Petition. The 3^rd respondent has filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. It was contended that the accident was occurred due to the careless crossing of the road by the deceased.

¶27

Petitioners have marked Exts.A1 to A6 in evidence. No evidence was adduced by the 3^rd respondent. The Tribunal found on the basis of the documentary evidence on record that the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent riding. The Tribunbal has also found that the petitioners as the legal heirs are entitled to get compensation for the death of Chandran. The compensation payable was arrived at as Rs.5,04,136/- and the 3^rd respondent was directed to deposit the said sum with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original petition till the date of realisation.

¶28

M.A.C.A.No.1103 of 2011

¶29

¶30

It was contended by Sri.Rakesh K., the learned

¶31

counsel for the petitioners that the monthly income was fixed by the Tribunal notionally as Rs.3,500/- and it is too low. According to him the decesed was stated as a cleaner and manual labourer earning Rs.8,000/- monthly and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed a higher sum as his monthly income instead of Rs.3,500/-. The learned counsel has also contended that 40% ought to have been added to the monthly income by the Tribunal in consideration of future prospects and one fourth, deducted towards personnel expenditure likely to be met with by deceased, had he been alive. It is urged that under the head loss of consortium, each of the petitioners were entitled to get Rs.40,000/- but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate also the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- each, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/respectively.

¶32

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has canvassed for adjusting Rs.10,000/- stands awarded by the

¶33

¶34

M.A.C.A.No.1103 of 2011

¶35

Tribunal, under the head loss of love and affection in

¶36

compensation payable under some other heads, since the petitioners are not entitled for that.

¶37

It is noticed that the injured died at the spot of

¶38

accident itself. The accident being occurred in the year 2006, in tune with the fixation of monthly income in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] this Court is inclined to fix Rs.5,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. 40% of the monthly income fixed is added to it in consideration of future prospects of the deceased. The deceased being survived by five members

¶39

of his family, 1/4^th is deducted from the said sum in consideration of personal expenditure of the deceased. Thus, the multiplicand is arrived at as Rs.69,300/- (Rs.5775 x 12). Multiplier was adopted correctly by the Tribunal as 17. Compensation for loss of dependency when assessed with the modified multiplicand and 17 as the multiplier, a sum of Rs.11,78,100/- is arrived at. Rs.4,76,136/- stands awarded by the Tribunal when deducted therefrom, the petitioner is entitled

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.1103 of 2011

¶41

¶42

to get Rs.7,01,964/- as compensation additionally. Each of the parties are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation both under the heads loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Rs.10,000/- each having been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, petitioners will get Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation under the head loss of consortium. Towards Funeral Expenses and loss of estate the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.15,000/each. Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively being the sum stands awarded under the respective heads, the petitioners will get Rs.12,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively as additional compensation under those heads. When the compensation is re-assessed in the above manner, a sum of Rs.9,03,964/- is found payable to the petitioners additionally as compensation and needles to say, the said amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶43

¶44

M.A.C.A.No.1103 of 2011

¶45

8. The appeal having been filed with a delay of 47 days,

¶46

the 3^rd respondent is exonerated from liability to pay interest fixed for the sum, for that period. The 3^rd respondent shall pay Rs.9,03,964/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Four) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the sum stands originally awarded by the Tribunal (if not already paid) with interest fixed thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment there.

¶47

MACA stands allowed accordingly.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶50

MJL

Minimol & Others v. Ottakunnummal Byju & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minimol & Others v. Ottakunnummal Byju & 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

M.K.Binu Vs State of Kerala

Vincent Solomon Vs Vinod

Kochurani Thomas Vs Muhammed Ameer

Salim K.M., Vs the State of Kerala

Sunil v G Vs v a Mohanan

Andikkat Shihabudheen @ Shihab Vs Binu T.V.