High Court Kerala High Court

Letha vs Ali Ummer Kunju on 15 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Letha vs Ali Ummer Kunju on 15 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 1367 of 2002()


1. LETHA, D/O. BHARATHY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BHAVANI (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED) OF DO.
3. CHANDRALEKSHA (D/O. DECEASED) MINOR.

                        Vs



1. ALI UMMER KUNJU, VILAYIL VEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. NAZEEM C., THAIKKAVINTE THEKETHIL,

3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.ABHILASH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :15/02/2008

 O R D E R

J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ.

————————————–
M.F.A. No. 1367 of 2002

—————————————
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008

Judgment

Koshy,J.

Husband of the first appellant sustained fatal injuries in

a motor accident on 30.8.1994 and he succumbed to the injuries on

1.9.1994. At the time of the accident, she was carrying a child and

child was delivered after four months of the accident. She along

with the infant child and mother of the deceased together filed an

application for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.

The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence

of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent

insurance company and directed the insurance company to deposit

the compensation. However, total compensation awarded was only

Rs.1,96,600/= with interest. Quantum of compensation alone is

disputed in this appeal.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased was

employed as a head load worker and he was getting Rs.3,000/- per

month, but, unfortunately, the widow was not able to produce any

documentary evidence regarding the income, even though it was

M.F.A.No. 1367/2002 2

stated that the deceased was employed as a head load worker

attached to the Indian Rare Earths Limited. He was maintaining a

family consisting of his wife and mother. Even if he gets Rs.100/-

per day as monthly income and he might have got 24 to 25 days

work in a month, Rs.2,400/- can be taken as the monthly income

and after deducting one-third, Rs.1,600/- can be taken as the

monthly loss of dependency. He was aged 24. His young widow, the

child in the womb and the mother were orphaned. He was the sole

bread winner of the family. Considering his age and taking

guidance from the second schedule, 17 is the apt multiplier. Even

though it was argued that a higher multiplier should be taken, we

are not changing the same in view of the guidelines fixed in the

second schedule. If that be so, compensation payable for the loss of

dependency will be Rs.3,26,400/- (Rs.1600 x 12 x 17). The tribunal

has awarded only an amount of Rs.1,53,600/-. Therefore, claimants

are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,72,800/- over and above

the amount decreed by the tribunal. Even though it is contended

that compensation awarded under other heads are also inadequate,

we are not changing the same considering the total amount. Out of

the additional amount of Rs.1,72,800/- second appellant mother is

allowed to withdraw Rs.25,000/- and out of the balance amount

M.F.A.No. 1367/2002 3

Rs.1,00,000/- should be allowed to be withdrawn by the first

appellant widow. Balance amount should be deposited in a

nationalised bank enabling the third appellant child to withdraw the

same at the age of 21 or at the time of her marriage whichever is

earlier.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

J.B.Koshy
Judge

K. Hema
Judge

vaa

M.F.A.No. 1367/2002 4

J.B. KOSHY
AND
K.HEMA ,JJ.

————————————-
M.F.A. No. 1367 of 2002

————————————-

Judgment

Dated:15th February, 2008