Partly allowed

Anas (Minor) v. Kadanchira Naufal

Kerala HC16 Jun 2010MACA/1679/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,57,400 in a motor accident case involving a 7-year-old child. The High Court held the disability compensation reasonable but enhanced awards for bystander's expenses and loss of amenities, raising total compensation. It also enhanced interest from 6% to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 36,500 and interest enhanced to 7.5% per annum; the Tribunal award was modified.

Anas (Minor) Vs Kadanchira Naufal — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 1679 of 2004()

¶6

----------------------OPMV.494/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶7

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶8

----------------------

¶9

C.K.ANAS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY FATHER-GUARDIAN, C.K.ABDUL AZEES, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIPPUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

---------------

¶13

1. KANDANCHIRA NAUFAL, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, VENGARA, P.O.PARAPPUR.

¶14

2. C.MUHAMMAD MUSTHAFA, S/O.KUNHI POCKER HAJI, CHALIANKANDI HOUSE, PAZHAYANADAKKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶15

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT.

¶16

ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶19

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.1679 OF 2004

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Barkath Ali, J.

¶24

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.494/2000 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated August 12, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,57,400/- for

¶25

the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶26

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :

¶27

The claimant was a boy aged 7 at the time of the accident. On October 8, 1998 at about 7. a.m., while he was walking along the side of Kunnumpuram-Kondotty public road. When he reached at Puliyam paramba, he was knocked down by a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-8/K3515 driven by the first respondent. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash

¶28

and negligent driving of the offending jeep by first respondent. First

¶29

MACA.No.1679/04 2

¶30

respondent as the driver, second respondent as the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the offending jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/-.

¶31

First respondent, the driver of the offending jeep, remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The second respondent, the owner of the offending jeep remained absent. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending jeep, filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶32

The father of the claimant was examined as PW1 and

¶33

Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on his side before the Tribunal. The certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,57,400/with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

MACA.No.1679/04 3

¶35

Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the

¶36

counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶37

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶38

The claimant sustained multiple superficial abrasions over the right side of face and forehead, abrasion over the temporal region of scalp and fracture of shaft of femur right as revealed from Ext.A2, the copy of the wound certificate. He has developed left hemiplegia and paraplegia as seen from Ext.A3series, the reference cards. The Medical Board of Medical College Hospital, Calicut assessed his disability as 80%. Ext.A1 is the Certificate of Medical Board. Now the claimant cannot urinate himself and his bowel movements are also affected.

¶39

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶40

Rs.3,57,400/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under :

¶41

Transport to hospital - Rs. 5,000/Extra nourishment - Rs. 13,500/-

¶42

MACA.No.1679/04

¶43

¶44

Bystander's expenses	- Rs.13,500/-
Medical expenses	- Rs.15,400/-
Pain and suffering	- Rs.30,000/-
For future treatment	- Rs.1,00,000/-
Disability	-Rs. 1,80,000/-

¶45

Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of

¶46

compensation for the disability caused, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for bystander's expenses.

¶47

The Tribunal took the annual income of the claimant as Rs. 15,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 1,80,000/for the disability caused. As the claimant was a boy aged only 7 at the time of the accident, we feel that the compensation awarded for the disability caused is reasonable.

¶48

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 13,500/- for the bystander's expenses which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained and the age of the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 6,500/-.

¶49

No compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for the loss

¶50

MACA.No.1679/04 5

¶51

of amenities and enjoyment of life. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and the disability caused to him, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.

¶52

There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation.

¶53

In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 36,500/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. He is also entitled to proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

MACA.No.1679/04

¶55

¶56

The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

¶57

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶58

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶59

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶60

sv.

¶61

MACA.No.1679/04 7

Anas (Minor) v. Kadanchira Naufal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas (Minor) v. Kadanchira Naufal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jumaila Vs Meeran

Paul Saji K.Antony Vs Poulose

Mohammed Ali (Kunhappa) Vs Poonkuzhi Unniyali

Smt.Fathima Amanulla Vs v.M.Sulaiman

Elsamma Vs K.J.Joseph

Kaliyamoorthy Vs K.Aboobacker Haji