Leelambika vs Navas on 24 March, 2021
In the judgment rendered by this Court
in Gopinathan A. and others v. Afzal Basha and others
[2020 (3) KHC 666], it is held in paragraph No.16 as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)Documents citing
A.Gopinathan vs Afzal Basha on 9 March, 2020
Antony vs Shemeer on 27 November, 2021
Going by the principle in Ramachandrappa's
case and Gopinathan A.'s case, the notional income of the
appellant should be fixed at Rs.8,000/-, having the accident
occurred in 2011.
Liji Suresh Kumar vs Anil Kumar on 27 November, 2021
In
Gopinathan A. (supra) this Court, following the ratio in
Ramachandrappa, held that even in a case where the
notional monthly income claimed in the claim petition is on
the lower side, the principle in Ramachandrappa's case and
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735] has to be followed
for fixing the notional income. Considering the fact that the
6
M.A.C.A.No.1588 of 2015
accident occurred in the year 2010, I hold that the appellant's
notional income can be taken as Rs.7,500/- per month.
Therefore, 'loss of earnings' awarded by the Tribunal for three
months as Rs.10,500/-, can be enhanced to Rs.22,500/-
(Rs.7500 x 3). The enhancement is Rs.12,000/-.
Abdul Salam vs Bindu M.K on 27 November, 2021
13. The notional income of the deceased fixed by the
learned Tribunal is less going by the principles laid down by
the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011)
13 SCC 236] and as explained the principles by this Court in
Gopinathan A. and others v. Afzal Basha and another
[2020 (3) KHC 666]. The Tribunal has taken the notional
income as Rs. 4,000/-. It is incorrect. Accident and death was
in 2009. Therefore, the appropriate notional income is
Rs.7,000/-. After deduction personal and living expenses at
the rate of 50% net income is taken as Rs.3,750/-. The
deceased was unmarried and the parents alone are the
claimants. Considering their age and all attending
circumstances, I am of the view that no compensation for
future prospects need be ordered.
Sujith.M vs Jose Sebastian on 4 December, 2021
12. The Tribunal has fixed Rs.5,000/- as the monthly
income of the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for
the appellant contended that in the light of the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] and as explained the principle in
5
M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015
Gopinathan A. and others v. Afzal Basha and another
[2020 3 KHC 666], the Tribunal ought to have fixed the
notional monthly income as Rs.8,000/-.
Sandhya vs Thrivedi Babu on 19 May, 2025
In Gopinathan A. and
Others v. Afzal Basha and Another [2020 (3)
KHC 666], this Court held that the notional
monthly income to be considered for a
housewife/homemaker who met with a motor
accident in the year 2004, for the purpose of
awarding just and reasonable compensation
under the head of 'loss of dependency', shall not
be less than Rs. 4,500/-. This figure is equivalent
to the notional income that could be taken for a
manual labourer or a worker in the unorganised
sector, such as a vegetable or fruit vendor, who
met with a motor accident in the same year,
taking into account the notional income fixed by
the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v.
1