Partly allowed

C.P.Pious v. Alice Thomas

Kerala HC23 Jun 2010MACA/418/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 13,500 to the claimant. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence and the lower heads of compensation but enhanced the award by Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The insurer shall deposit the enhanced amount.

C.P.Pious Vs Alice Thomas — 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 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 418 of 2004()

¶6

---------------------OPMV.682/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

C.P.PIOUS, S/O.POULOSE, THAZHAVARA HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

¶13

ALICE THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS RAJAN, CHELAMMATTOM HOSE, PARIYARAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶14

EMERSON ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, MUPPATHIYIL HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA (W) P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

M.A.C.A. 418 of 2004

Dated: JUNE 23, 2010

JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 682/1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, March 25, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.13,500/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶24

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The claimant was working as an Advocate Clerk and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. On December 21, 1997 at about 3.15 p.m. the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL5B/5930 along T.B.Road, Kottayam. At that time a car bearing registration No.KL01/0-2899 driven by the 2^nd respondent came at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent as the owner, the 2^nd respondent as the driver and the 3^rd respondent as the insurer of the offending car

¶25

M.A.C.A. 418 of 2004

¶26

¶27

are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,31,500/-.

¶28

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending car remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 3^rd respondent, insurer of the offending car, filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant.

¶29

Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3^rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.13,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.500/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶30

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

¶31

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is

¶32

M.A.C.A. 418 of 2004

¶33

¶34

entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶35

The claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg as revealed from Ext.A2, copy of the wound certificate, issued from the hospital.

¶36

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-

¶37

loss of earnings for two months Rs.3000/treatment expenses 500/pain and sufferings 10,000/-

¶38

The Counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that no compensation was awarded for the disability caused and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The claimant did not produce any certificate of disability to show that he has suffered any disability due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding compensation for the alleged disability caused. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.

¶39

Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation

¶40

M.A.C.A. 418 of 2004

¶41

¶42

of Rs.10,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3^rd 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 is modified to the above extent.

¶43

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶44

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶45

mt/-

C.P.Pious v. Alice Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Pious v. Alice Thomas

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

Santhoshkumar Vs J.Surapalan

Bukhary Vs Raziya Beegam

Nirmala Vs M/S.J.P.Associates

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.K.Sreekumary Amma

Padmini Mohanlal Vs Sasi V.V.

Noble C.Paul Vs Saju Joseph