Kerala High Court
Sheejamol vs The Royal Sundaram on 11 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
MACA NO. 1528 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13-04-2016 IN OPMV 217/2012 OF IVTH
ADDL.M.A.C.T, KOLLAM.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :
1 SHEEJAMOL, AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O. LEKSHMIKUTTY, THEKKECHARUVIL, MYLAPPOOR,
UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM.
2 ISWARYA, AGED 15 YEARS,
D/O. SHEEJAMOL, THEKKECHARUVIL, MYLAPPOOR,
UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM.(MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE
1ST APPELLANT, MOTHER).
3 AKSHAY, AGED 11 YEARS, S/O. SUNITH,
THEKKECHARUVIL, MYLAPPOOR, UMAYANALLOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM. (MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT,
MOTHER).
4 CHANDRAMATHY, AGED 64 YEARS, M/O. SUNITH,
THEKKECHARUVIL, MYLAPPOOR, UMAYANALLOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P & SMT.RENY ANTO.
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT :
THE ROYAL SUNDARAM,SUNDARAM TOWERS,
46 WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI-14.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.1528 of 2016
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2022
The appeal against the award of the Tribunal is only on
the quantum.
2. Although consensus could be arrived at with respect to
the heads other than those where notional income has a bearing, the
learned counsel appearing on both sides could not agree on the
notional income. Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company
contended that the notional income in terms of Ramachandrappa is
Rs.8,000/-, which is to be reckoned, whereas learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant is a mason, who was fetching
Rs.700 per day, as proved by examining his employers, namely PW2 and
PW3. Although income at the rate of Rs.700 per day was spoken to by
PWS 2 and 3, the said version is not liable to be reckoned as such.
This Court is of the opinion that, it would be reasonable to fix the
income at Rs.10,000/- per month. Income is accordingly fixed.
3. As regards other heads, after hearing the matter for some
time, suggestions for settlement were put to the learned Counsel
appearing for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance Company. Both having agreed to the suggestions made by
this Court, the following enhancement is made as per the tabulation
below:
M.A.C.A.No.1528 of 2016
Sl. Head of Claim Amount awarded Total amount
No. by the Tribunal after
enhancement in
appeal
1 Transportation Expenses 2000 2000
2 Loss of Dependency(Future 8,10,000 18,90,000
prospects of 40% to be added (14,000x12x15x
along with notional income 3/4)
of 10,000)
3 Funeral Expenses 25,000 15,000
4 Loss of estate 5,000 15,000
5 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 1,60,000
(40,000x4)
dependants
6 Damage to Clothing 1000 1000
7 Loss of love and affection 1,05,000 To be deducted
Total 10,48,000/- 20,83,000
Amount enhanced - 20,83,000 - 10,48,000 = 10,35,000/-
4. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts
awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award
and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 5% from the date of
petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be
granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the
Bank account before the Insurance company/Tribunal within one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and
amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through
NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the
Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made
clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the
period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company
fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest on enhanced amount
M.A.C.A.No.1528 of 2016
shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of
petition.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
NR/11/03/2022
