Sreemol vs Shanmughan
2021 Latest Caselaw 24018 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
        SATURDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 27TH
                      AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                     MACA NO. 80 OF 2018
 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 237/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
               CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT      :

           SREEMOL,
           W/O. LATE SHINOJ,
           D/O.SAINAN, KADEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           VADAKKEKARA P.O., NEENDOOR,
           N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
           SMT.P.N.SINDHU


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT      :

    1      SHANMUGHAN,
           F/O.DECEASED SHINOJ,
           KANKIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           GOTHURUTH P.O.,
           KOTHAPARAMBU,
           KODUNGALLUR,
           THRIUSSUR DISTRICT-683 513.
    2      VALSALA,
           M/O.DECEASED SHINOJ,
           KANKIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           GOTHURUTH P.O., KOTHAPARAMBU,
           KODUNGALLUR,
           THRIUSSUR DISTRICT-683 513.
    3      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD.,
           MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
           N.PARAVUR,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513
 M.A.C.A.No.80 of 2018               ..2..




              BY SMT.JEENA JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL
              BY ADVS.
              SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
              SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
              SRI.G.D.PANICKER



       THIS    MOTOR    ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING   BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.80 of 2018                   ..3..




                        M.A.C.A.No.80 of 2018
           -------------------------------------------------------


                            JUDGMENT

Award in O.P.(MV)No.237 of 2014 dated 16.8.2017

on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North

Paravur is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the

third respondent, who is none other than the wife of the

deceased.

2. According to the appellant, the Tribunal after

granting Rs.19,56,000/- as compensation apportioned the

same without rationale and thereby, 10% alone was granted in

favour of the appellant and remaining 90% was apportioned in

favour of the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the

deceased.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed

out that the apportionment made by the Tribunal is absolutely

erroneous and not justifiable. It is submitted further that the M.A.C.A.No.80 of 2018 ..4..

parents of the deceased, who took the gold ornaments and

money of the wife for their welfare, were given 90% of the

award amount. Thus, he canvassed 50% of the amount for the

appellant.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned

counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that the wife of the

deceased not joined as petitioner in the original petition since

she did not want compensation and she was incorporated as a

respondent by the petitioners in that context. Therefore, 10%

of the total award amount granted by the Tribunal set apart

towards her share and such apportionment is reasonable.

5. While appreciating the rival contentions, it is

not in dispute that the third respondent, the appellant herein is

none other than the wife of the deceased and the petitioners,

the parents arrayed her as third respondent while filing the

original petition. The Tribunal apportioned 10% of the award

amount alone in favour of the appellant. In no stretch of

imagination, it can be said that the said apportionment is fair M.A.C.A.No.80 of 2018 ..5..

and reasonable. As such the Tribunal could not be justified in

the matter of fixing 10% alone towards the share of the wife

after apportioning the major portion viz., 90% in favour of the

parents. Having appraised the status of the appellant as the

wife of the deceased, I am of the view that 40% of the award

amount to be allotted towards the share of the appellant and

the remaining 60% shall go in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2.

In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered

that 40% of the award amount granted by the Tribunal shall go

in favour of the third respondent and the remaining 60% shall

go in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 in equal proportion (30%

each). The insurance company is directed to deposit the

amount in this proportion before the Tribunal and on deposit,

the parties are at liberty to release the same.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj