Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. versus GANGARAM NARASAPPA RODKE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. GANGARAM NARASAPPA RODKE - MACA No. 186 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10480 (18 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 186 of 2007()

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. GANGARAM NARASAPPA RODKE,
... Respondent

2. JALSABAI GANGARAM BODKE,

3. MOHAN GANGARAM BODKE,

4. SURESH GANGARAM BODKE,

5. VINOD GANGARAM NARASAPPA BODKE,

6. SUJATHA GANGARAM NARASAPPA BODKE,

For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

For Respondent :SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM

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

Dated :18/06/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

M.A.C.A.No.186 OF 2007 Dated 18th June, 2007

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J

. A boy aged 19, who was engaged in selling Bombay sweets in Shoranur, met with an accident on 12.10.04 while he was riding his bicycle through the road for selling sweets. His parents, brothers and sisters claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/=. The total amount awarded was Rs.3,46,700/= with 6% interest and cost of Rs.4,000/=. The appellant insurance company questions only quantum of compensation as it was found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company. The Tribunal found that even though the deceased was a seller of sweets, his daily income was not proved. However, Tribunal assessed that Rs.100/= can be his daily income and for 25 days he must have been working and, therefore, in the absence of data, Rs.2,500/= was fixed as the monthly income. We also note that in 1994, when second schedule was framed, notional income of Rs.1,250/= per month was fixed even for a non-earning person. Here, the accident occurred only in 2004. Even though the deceased was aged 19 at the time of accident, he was working and, therefore, Rs.2,500/= fixed cannot be taken as arbitrary so as to interfere in the award. Tribunal MACA.186/2007 2 has taken 11 as the multiplier. Mother of the deceased was aged 51 at the time of the accident and taking guidance from the second schedule, if the age is above 50 but not exceeding 55, the apt multiplier is 11. If we take the age of the deceased, the multiplier will be 16. But, it has been held by the Apex Court that even though second schedule should be taken as a guideline for calculating compensation under Section 166 also, though claim is under Section 163A, while calculating compensation under Section 166, lesser of multiplier applicable to the victims and dependents should be taken. Considering the age of the mother, 11 is the apt multiplier. So, no interference is required. Even though Rs.2,500/= was taken as notional income, taking into account future prospects, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.2000/= as monthly loss of dependency. The Apex Court in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas ((1994) 2 SCC 176) held that while calculating compensation for youngsters, future prospects also has to be taken into account. The Tribunal has then taken Rs.2,000/= as monthly loss of dependency and calculated compensation, especially considering the low multiplier taken. We see no ground to interfere with the compensation granted for loss of dependency. For loss of love and affection Rs.35,000/= was awarded and for loss of estate and other MACA.186/2007 3 non-pecuniary loss Rs.35,000/= was awarded. When a youngster dies, normally, loss of estate is not granted and if second schedule is taken into account, loss of estate that can be given is only Rs.2,500/=. With regard to loss of love and affection, we are of the opinion that only Rs.15,000/= need be granted. So, Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,500/= more. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for pain and suffering. He died in the hospital after struggling for life for five days. We award Rs.10,000/= towards pain and suffering. Even then the Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,500/= in excess. Thus, total amount payable as compensation is only Rs.3,04,200/= against Rs,3,46,700 awarded. We are not interfering with the cost as well as rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN

JUDGE

tks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.