Partly allowed

Dr.Haridas R.T v. Josey J.Jose

Kerala HC18 Jun 2010MACA/501/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging the compensation quantum in a motor accident case. The Court enhanced the disability and loss of earnings compensation by correcting the monthly income estimate from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 3,000, ordering the insurer to deposit the additional amount.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,600 granted for disability and loss of earnings; insurer directed to deposit the amount.

Dr.Haridas R.T Vs Josey J.Jose — 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

FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 501 of 2003()

¶6

---------------------OPMV.1627/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

DR.HARIDAS.R.T., S/O. DR.THANKAPPAN NAIR RAMANILAYAM, THODANAL P.O., PULIYANUR (VIA), PALAI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOHN SRI.B.JAYAPARAKASH SRI.RENJU JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

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

¶13

1. JOSEY.J. JOSE, ALACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶14

2. JOHNSON @ THANKACHAN S/O. ANTONY, VETTIKATTIL ANIKKADU NORTH KARA, CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, 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.501 OF 2003

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Barkath Ali, J.

¶25

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1627/1994 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 9, 2002 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,47,000/( mistakenly noted as Rs. 1,45,000/- in the award) for the loss caused to

¶26

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

¶27

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :

¶28

The claimant was aged 32 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as an Ayurvedic Physician . On January 25, 1994 at about 3.p.m. the claimant was riding his motor cycle and when he reached at Kanjiramattom junction, he was knocked down by the jeep bearing Reg.No.KEK 4579 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 jeep by first respondent. First respondent as the driver, second respondent as

¶29

MACA.No.501/2003 2

¶30

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. 7.5 lakhs.

¶31

First respondent, the driver of the offending jeep filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. Second respondent, the owner of the offending jeep remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent the insurer of the offending jeep filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant.

¶32

Exts.A1 to A20 series were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. 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. 1,47,000/- ( mistakenly noted as Rs,1,45,000/- in the award) with interest @ 9% 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.

¶33

Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the

¶34

MACA.No.501/2003 3

¶35

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 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.

¶37

The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A2, the copy of the wound certificate:

¶38

Type III compound fracture right leg, middle third, fracture of medial mallelous, fracture of ribs, fracture of neck of 2^nd metacarpel and other lacerated and multiple injuries.

¶39

Ext.A12 is the two discharge cards issued from the Medical College Hospital. Ext.A14 is the treatment certificate issued from the Marian Medical Centre, Pala. Ext.A19, the disability certificate, issued by the Orthopaedic Department of Medical College Hospital shows that he has now a disability of 19%.

¶40

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,47,000/-( mistakenly noted as Rs. 1,45,000/- in the award). The

¶41

MACA.No.501/2003

¶42

¶43

break up of the compensation awarded is as under :

¶44

Loss of earnings	- Rs. 7,500/-
Medical expenses	- Rs.17,000/-
Transportation expenses	- Rs. 3,000/-
Pain and suffering	- Rs. 25,000/-
Disability	- Rs. 84,500/-
Loss of earning power	- Rs. 10,000/-

¶45

Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of

¶46

compensation for the disability caused.

¶47

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,500/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 and took the percentage of disability as 19% and awarded Rs. 84,500/- towards disability caused. Before this court, the claimant has produced his degree certificate regarding Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines. Taking into consideration this aspect, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably estimated at Rs. 3,000/-. The percentage of disability as 19% and the multiplier as 15 adopted by the Tribunal are found to be justifiable. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,02,600/-. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 18,100/-.

¶48

There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded

¶49

MACA.No.501/2003 5

¶50

loss of earnings of Rs. 7,500/- i.e. for three months @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. As we have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/-, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 9,000/towards loss of earnings. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.

¶51

In the result, the award of the Tribunal is corrected as Rs. 1,47,000/-. The claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 19,600/-. 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 is modified to the above extent.

¶52

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶53

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶54

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶55

sv.

¶56

MACA.No.501/2003 6

¶57

MACA.No.501/2003 7

Dr.Haridas R.T v. Josey J.Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Haridas R.T v. Josey J.Jose

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

Arun Vs R.Sivasankaran

P.K.Abdul Kharim Vs K.Nafeesa

A.D.Manoharan Vs K.K.Ulahannan

Selvaraj Vs Parthan Achari

Kochappan Vs Sivan

Amina Vs Rameshkumar