Partly allowed

Yashique v. Anwar Haroon Ali.M

Kerala HC21 Jun 2010MACA/304/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced compensation for a minor injured in a road accident. The Court found the Tribunal's disability award reasonable but ordered additional relief for disfigurement and loss of amenities, modifying the final award.

What did the court decide?

Award of the Tribunal modified to include an additional Rs. 50,000/- compensation for loss of amenities, disfigurement, and future treatment.

Yashique Vs Anwar Haroon Ali.M — Consumer Protection | 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

MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 304 of 2004()

¶6

---------------------OPMV.587/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶7

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

YASHIQUE, 12 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER ABDUL KHADER, PARAYANGADAN HOUSE, PATTARKULAM, NARUKARA POST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT

¶12

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

¶13

1. ANWAR HAROON ALI.M. S/O. MOHAMMED ABDUL JABBAR, MELETHIL HOUSE, NILAMBUR (DRIVER)

¶14

2. SALFUDHEEN S/O. ABDUL RAZACK, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MADATHODI HOUSE, P.O.PADINHATTUMURI.

¶15

3. UNITED INDIA, INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANJERI.

¶16

ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3

¶17

SMT.DEEPA GEORGE FOR R3

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.304 OF 2004

¶22

¶23

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2010

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Barkath Ali, J.

¶26

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.587/1999 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 15, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 38,050/- for

¶27

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

¶28

motor accident.

¶29

2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :

¶30

The claimant was a boy aged 12 at the time of the accident. On June 18, 1998 at about 9.30 a.m., while the claimant was walking along the side of the road at Pattarkulam, he was knocked down by a Maruthi van bearing Reg.No.KL 11/84 driven by the first respondent. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi van by first respondent. First respondent as the driver, second respondent as the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the

¶31

MACA.No.304/2004 2

¶32

offending Maruthi Van are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs 1.5 lakhs.

¶33

Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending Maruthi van remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent the insurer of the offending Maruthi van filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶34

Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.X1, the certificate of disability, were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi van by first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 38,050/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶36

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first

¶37

MACA.No.304/2004 3

¶38

respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is

¶39

entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶40

The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed

¶41

from Ext.A2, the copy of the wound certificate issued from the District

¶42

Hospital, Manjeri.

¶43

Fracture shaft of left humerus.

¶44

Fracture middle of left femur.

¶45

Lacerated wound on occipital region 3 x 1 cm. skull deep.

¶46

Fracture skull

¶47

Fracture lower end of both left femur

¶48

Head injury

¶49

Abrasion left shoulder.

¶50

Abrasion parietal region 9. Contusion forehead.

¶51

Ext.A3 series are copies of Index cards issued from Medical

¶52

College Hospital, Calicut. Ext.X1, the certificate issued by the Medical

¶53

Board shows that the claimant has a permanent disability of 7%.

¶54

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.38,050/-.

¶55

The break up of the compensation awarded is as under :

¶56

Transport to hospital	- Rs.1,000/-
Extra nourishment	- Rs.1,000/-
Damage to clothing	- Rs. 300/-
Treatment and medical exp.	- Rs.5,000/-
Pain and suffering	- Rs.15,000/-
Disability	- Rs.15,750/-

¶57

MACA.No.304/2004 4

¶58

Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of

¶59

compensation for the disability caused, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, future treatment expenses and for disfigurement.

¶60

As directed by us, the claimant appeared before us. His left arm is visibly deformed especially the wrist portion . He has also difficulty in walking. The Tribunal took the annual income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/-, took the disability as 7% and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 15,750/- for the disability caused. As the claimant was a boy aged 12 at the time of the accident, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused is reasonable.

¶61

There is another aspect in this case. No compensation was awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for the disfigurement caused. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. For the disfigurement caused, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be adequate.

¶62

Counsel for the appellant/claimant produced the copy of certificate issued from Malabar Hospital, Manjeri to the effect that the

¶63

MACA.No.304/2004

¶64

¶65

claimant has to undergo a correction surgery of the elbow for which the approximate expenses would come to Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, for the future treatment expenses, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.

¶66

In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and 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. The award of the Tribunal

¶67

is modified to the above extent.

¶68

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶69

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶70

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶71

sv.

¶72

MACA.No.304/2004 6

¶73

MACA.No.304/2004 7

Yashique v. Anwar Haroon Ali.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashique v. Anwar Haroon Ali.M

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

Dr.Haridas R.T Vs Josey J.Jose

Selvaraj Vs Parthan Achari

Kochappan Vs Sivan

Mrs.Molly Joseph Vs Thressia

K.Shamsudheen Vs M.K.Anilkumar

Jyothi Lalithambika Vs Sasikumar