The New India Assurance Company ... vs K.K.Rugmini Amma
2022 Latest Caselaw 2020 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
   SATURDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 30TH MAGHA, 1943
                       MACA NO. 2188 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD     DATED 19.05.2012 IN OPMV 1640/2005 OF MOTOR
                 ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

            THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
            ALAPPUZHA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL
            OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
            SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       K.K.RUGMINI AMMA
            W/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, DWARAKA, KAITHAVANA,
            ALAPPUZHA-678 315.
    2       BIJI MONI K
            D/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, DWARAKA, KAITHAVANA,
            ALAPPUZHA-678 315.
    3       BIPIN G.
            S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, DWARAKA, KAITHAVANA,
            ALAPPUZHA-678 315.
    4       BINU G.
            S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, DWARAKA, KAITHAVANA,
            ALAPPUZHA-678 315
    5       BINOY G.
            S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, DWARAKA, KAITHAVANA,
            ALAPPUZHA-678 315.(NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST
            RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE ABOVE OP AND HENCE THEY
            ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL).

            BY ADV SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN


     THIS   MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
  M.A.C.A.No. 2188 of 2012
                                  - 2 -


                     K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
           ------------------------------------------------
                     M.A.C.A.No.2188 of 2012
          --------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 19th day of February, 2022



                               JUDGMENT

The appellant is the Insurance Company and the challenge is

against the quantum. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the

appeal is only on the quantum. The first contention is that though the

claim was for Rs.1,51,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,81,000/- . It is

also argued that four of the claimants were major children. The

reduction in personal expenses was only to the extent of ¼. Only the

wife, first appellant can be considered as the dependant, in which

circumstance half of the notional income has to be reduced for

personal expense.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants also.

3. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal adopted notional income

of only Rs.3,000/-. Even a coolie, as has been decided in

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236 would be fixed with

a notional income of Rs.5,000/- in the year 2005. Further, future

prospects at 25% has to be granted in accordance with National M.A.C.A.No. 2188 of 2012

- 3 -

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662].

4. Again for love and affection, only Rs.20,000/- has been

granted. All claimants would have been entitled for Rs.40,000/- each

for loss of consortium. Considering the overall circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the

award passed.

In the above circumstances, the appeal would stand dismissed.

Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

lsn