Allowed

Abdul Salam v. Bindu M.K

Kerala HC28 Jun 2022RP/947/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitioners challenged the denial of future prospects in a motor accident compensation case. The Court held that despite the deceased being self-employed and unmarried, the Apex Court precedent mandates a 40% addition for future prospects if under 40 years. Consequently, the review petition was allowed to grant this additional amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to realise Rs. 2,56,000 as compensation for future prospects from the third respondent.

Abdul Salam Vs Bindu M.K — Insurance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 947 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2021 IN MACA 853/2014 OF

¶7

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

¶9

1 ABDUL SALAM

¶10

AGED 61 YEARS, S/O SULAIMAN KUNJU, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, THEVALLY P.O, KOLLAM.

¶11

2 REPHEEKKA BEEVI, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O ABDUL SALAM, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL THEVALLY P.O, KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADV SAJU J PANICKER

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 BINDU M.K., VILAYIL VEEDU, 7/504, NEELAMAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶15

2 SHIBULAL,

¶16

S/O SASILAL, NIVAS, TIRUMULLAVARAM P.O, KOLLAM.

¶17

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER,

¶18

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM.

¶19

4 A. MUHAMAD SHEREEF, VALIYAVEETTIL HOSUE, AYATHIL P.O, KOLLAM.

¶20

SRI N.S.NAJEEB- RESPONDENT

¶21

¶22

Review Petition No.947 of 2021 in MACA No.853 of 2014

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON 28.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

Review Petition No.947 of 2021 in MACA No.853 of 2014

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The appellants are the review petitioners. They filed this petition under Section 114, Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶28

The petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of future prospects while awarding enhanced compensation as per judgment dated 27.11.2021 in the appeal. The contentions of the petitioners in the above regard as contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition are as follows:

¶29

“(3) This Hon'ble Court was pleased to enhance the compensation, by enhancing the compensation by an amount of Rs.7,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of deposit and a costs of Rs.10,000/-.

¶30

(4) It is submitted that during the argument the review petitioners claimed for future prospects. The deceased was working as a welder with U'tec Industries, Neendakara with a monthly income of Rs.7,500/-. The deceased in this case was self-employed and in such cases there should be an addition of 40% of the said

¶31

¶32

Review Petition No.947 of 2021 in MACA No.853 of 2014

¶33

income where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Rs.15000/- has to be awarded under the head of loss of estate. This Hon'ble Court in the judgment said that the deceased was unmarried and the parents alone are the claimants. Considering their age and all attending circumstances, I am of the view that no compensation for future prospects need be ordered. This is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases.”

¶34

The petitioners also contended that compensation

¶35

on the ground of loss of estate was also illegally denied. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the compensation under the head of 'loss of estate' was denied

¶36

stating sufficient reasons and the mistake is liable to be corrected only in appeal.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, insurer, would submit that compensation on the ground of future prospects was denied stating reasons thereof and hence the contention of the petitioners in that regard is also not liable to be considered under the review jurisdiction.

¶38

In Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]

¶39

¶40

Review Petition No.947 of 2021 in MACA No.853 of 2014

¶41

the Apex Court held that if the deceased was below the age of 40 years and did not have a permanent job, an addition of 40% of the established income should be awarded as compensation for future prospects. When the said benefit was denied, it goes against the law laid down by the Apex Court in that regard. In that view of the matter, judgment of this case became an error. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the review petition is liable to be allowed to the extent that the petitioners/appellants are also entitled to get 40% of the compensation ordered for loss of income. The compensation awarded for loss of income as per the impugned judgment is Rs.6,42,000/-. 40% of it is Rs.2,56,800/-. Therefore the petitioners/appellants are allowed to realise Rs.2,56,000/(Rupees two lakhs and fifty six thousand only) also from the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

The review petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

dkr

Abdul Salam v. Bindu M.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. Bindu M.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Ansar, S/O. Muhammed Kunju, Vs State of Kerala

Benny, S/O. Iype, Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Ali Vs State

K. Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

B.M. Dinesha Vs Praveen Kumar