Allowed

Salgunan v. Pradeepan

Kerala HC10 Jun 2010MACA/511/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal challenged the low quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,54,300/- to Rs. 4,51,500/- for disability based on the claimant's actual income, affirming other heads of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 3,54,300/- enhanced by an additional Rs. 97,200/- for disability. Interest at 7.5% per annum awarded. Total compensation may now be Rs. 4,51,500/- (adjusted for earlier additions).

Salgunan Vs Pradeepan — 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 511 of 2006()

¶6

----------------------------OPMV.3285/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

----------------------------------------------------------SALGUNAN, S/O. KITTUNNI, RESIDING AT KUNDOLI HOUSE, P.O. KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-----------------------1. PRADEEPAN, RSIDING AT GEETHA NIVAS, VENGAD, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR.

¶12

2. RAGHAVAN, S/O. CHATHU, RESIDING AT KOMATH HOUSE, MALABAR KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KANNUR.

¶13

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BROTHERS COMPLEX, THALASSERY ROAD, KANNUR.

¶14

4. M. SIVAJI, RESIDING AT 1/44E, PILLAIYAR KOIL STREET, KANGAYANOOR VILLAGE, POLUR, TAMILNADU.

¶15

5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 75, KRISHNAN STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI T.S. DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.

¶16

ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PKK

¶19

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

¶20

M.A.C.A NO. 511 OF 2006

¶21

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Barkath Ali, J.

¶24

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in OP(MV) No.3285/2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated August 9, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,54,300/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶25

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:

¶26

The claimant was aged 28 at the time of accident and used to earn Rs. 4120/- per month as Sales Manager of Medico Pharmaceutical Distributors, Thrissur. On May 29, 2000 at about 5.10 p.m, the claimant was riding his motor cycle along Patturaikkal –Chembukavu public road. When he reached near Sitaram Automobiles, a lorry bearing registration No.TCZ 6543 which was proceeding in front stopped and while the claimant was overtaking that lorry, a bus bearing registration No. KL-13/E 6181 driven by the 2^nd respondent, came at a high speed and

¶27

M.A.C.A NO. 511 OF 2006

¶28

¶29

dashed against the motor cycle. The claimant fell on in the road and at that time the lorry which was stopped moved forward and the rear wheel of the lorry ran over the legs of the petitioner causing serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of drivers of the bus and the lorry viz. respondent Nos. 2 and 4 respectively. Respondents 1 to 3, the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending bus and respondents 4 and 5, the owner-cum-driver and insurer respectively of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶30

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending bus and the 4^th respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending lorry remained absent and were set ex-parte by the Tribunal. Respondents 3 and 5, the insurer of the bus and the lorry respectively filed separate written statements admitting the policy. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant.

¶31

PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of

¶32

¶33

M.A.C.A NO. 511 OF 2006

¶34

evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,54,300/- as against respondents 3 and 5 in the proportion of 75:25 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and 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 respondents 2 and 4, the drivers of offending vehicles 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 wound certificate issued by Aswini Hospital, Thrissur.

¶38

i) Frature of tibia left leg.

¶39

ii)Fracture of fibula of left leg.

¶40

iii)Large crushed lacerated wound on left leg extending from knee to ankle exposing fracture bone and muscles.

¶41

iv)Three punctured wound on lower lip

¶42

M.A.C.A NO. 511 OF 2006

¶43

¶44

v)Abrasion on dorsum of left foot, left by toe and innerside of lower lip.

¶45

He was admitted in the hospital on 29.5.2000 and was discharged on 7.10.2000. In Ext. X1 disability certificate the Medical Board has certified that the claimant has permanent disability of 35%

¶46

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,54,300/-. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:-

¶47

Disability caused	:Rs. 1,29,600
Pain and suffering	:Rs. 25,000
Loss of earnings	:Rs. 24,000
Medical expense	:Rs. 1,26,124
Transportation expense	:Rs. 2,000
Extra nourishment	:Rs. 2,000
Loss of earning power	:Rs. 25,000
Loss of amenities and}	:Rs. 20,000
enjoyment of life }
damage to clothings	:Rs. 500

¶48

The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for disability caused, pain and suffering endured and for loss of earnings. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/- and took the percentage of disability as 30% and adopted a multiplier of 18, and awarded a

¶49

M.A.C.A NO. 511 OF 2006

¶50

¶51

compensation of Rs. 1,29,600/- for the disability caused. According to the claimant, he used to earn Rs. 4120/- per month as Sales Manager of M/s. Medico Pharmaceutical Distributors, Thrissur. Ext.A7 is the certificate issued from his employer proving his salary. Considering this aspect we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month. The multiplier adopted as 18 and the percentage of disability assessed as 30% by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable. Thus for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,26,800/- ( 3500 x 12 x 18 x 30%). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.97,200/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same.

¶52

In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 97,200/-. He is entitled to an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The 3^rd and 5^th respondents, being the insurer of the offending bus and lorry respectively shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within

¶53

M.A.C.A NO. 511 OF 2006

¶54

¶55

2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the proportion 75:25. The Award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

¶56

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶57

A.K. BASHEER (JUDGE)

¶58

P.Q. BARKATH ALI (JUDGE)

¶59

PKK

Salgunan v. Pradeepan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salgunan v. Pradeepan

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

Baiju Thomas Alias Biju Vs the Manager

Mohanan Vs K.a.Pradeep

Bhageerathi Vs Vijayan

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs S.Divakaran

K.M.Sara Vs Gimmy Joseph

Kandamuthan Vs Dileep Kumar