The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Aboobaker on 7 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 201 of 2004()


1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ABOOBAKER, S/O.MEETHEEN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHAMIA,

3. AISAL,

4. SHAMEERA (MINOR), D/O.ABOOBACKER,

5. RASHEED (MINOR0,

6. SHAHANA (MINOR),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :07/08/2008

 O R D E R
               J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
                        --------------------------------------
                        M.A.C.A.No.201 OF 2004
                        -------------------------------------
                         Dated 7th August, 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

Koshy,J.

A woman aged 39 died in a motor accident on 20.10.1999

Her husband, mother and four children applied for compensation. The

Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company. The

Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,80,200/= against a claim of

Rs.4,00,000/=. The only contention raised by the appellant insurance

company is that the amount awarded is excessive. Therefore, only that

question is being considered in this appeal. The deceased was a coolie

worker. According to the claimants, the deceased was getting

Rs.3,000/= per month. Even if she was getting only Rs.100/= per day

and she would have got 25 days’ work, her monthly income can be taken

as Rs.2,500/=. Apart from the above, being a house wife, her services to

the family cannot be underestimated and such services are also not

valueless. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.1,800/= as the monthly

income and then deducting one third only Rs.1,200/= was taken as the

monthly contribution to the family. Since she was aged 39, taking

guidance from the second schedule 16 was taken as the multiplier and

MACA.201/2004 2

calculated compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded is just

and reasonable and no interference is required in the impugned

award.

The appeal is dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE

tks