MFA No. 812 of 1992 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Deceased Gopalan was aged 50 years at the time of death. He was a coolie. The appellants, widow and children, were aged 41years, 23 years, 19 years, 16 years and 14 years respectively. Afterconsidering all the parameters, the Tribunal fixed the totalcompensation payable as…
- Para 44. Although the owner of the vehicle had filed a cross objection M.F.A. No. 812/1992 -: 2 :-challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/- as the owner had paidpremium of only Rs. 60/- and…
Judgment
M. Ramachandran & S. Siri Jagan, JJ.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=M.F.A. No. 812 of 1992 &Cross objection =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this, the 30th January, 2007.J U D G M E N TSiri Jagan, J.This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in O.P(M.V) No.819 of 1988 on the files of the M.A.C.T., Thalasserry, seekingenhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect ofthe death of one Kappanakkal Gopalan, who died in a motor accidenton 1-7-1988. The appellants are the legal heirs of the saidKappanakkal Gopalan.
Heard both sides. The only question to be decided in thisappeal is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal isjust and reasonable.
Deceased Gopalan was aged 50 years at the time of death. He was a coolie. The appellants, widow and children, were aged 41years, 23 years, 19 years, 16 years and 14 years respectively. Afterconsidering all the parameters, the Tribunal fixed the totalcompensation payable as Rs. 54,300/-. We find that the Tribunal hasfixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 400/- and taking amultiplier of 6, the total compensation for loss of dependency wasassessed at Rs. 28,800/-. Rs. 7500/- was given as compensation to the1st appellant towards loss of consortium. For pain and suffering, anamount of Rs. 16,000/- was also granted. Other amounts were alsogranted on minor heads. On a consideration of the facts andcircumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the Tribunal hasawarded just and reasonable compensation after taking into accountall the parameters which go into the issue of fixation of compensationin motor accident claims.
Although the owner of the vehicle had filed a cross objection M.F.A. No. 812/1992 -: 2 :-challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/- as the owner had paidpremium of only Rs. 60/- and therefore found that the 2nd respondentis liable to indemnify the insured only to the extent of Rs.15,000/-.The Insurance Company has produced Ext. B1 carbon copy of thepolicy to prove the same. The owner has not cared to produce theoriginal policy to disprove the same. In the above circumstances, wedo not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal inthis regard also. In view of our above findings, we do not find any merit either inthe appeal or in the cross objection and accordingly, they aredismissed. Sd/- M. Ramachandran, Judge. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/[True copy]P.S to Judge. M.F.A. No. 812/1992 -: 3 :- M. Ramachandran & S. Siri Jagan, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.F.A. No. 812 of 1992 & Cross objection =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= J U D G M E N T 30th January, 2007.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.