Partly allowed

Othayoth Govindraj v. Manoj Joseph

Kerala HC7 Jun 2010MACA/652/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an award of Rs.2,08,055/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Court upheld the compensation for disability but ordered an additional Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and future prospects, modifying the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded for loss of amenities and future prospects; Tribunal award modified.

Othayoth Govindraj Vs Manoj Joseph — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 652 of 2003() ---------------------OPMV.1581/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

OTHAYOTH GOVINDRAJ, S/O. GOPALAN, 45 YEARS, SEAMAN, MERCHANT NAVY, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, MANNA, P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

MANOJ JOSEPH, (PUTHAN PURAYIL) S/O. JOSEPH, 21 YEARS, PUTHEN PURAYIL, P.O. NELLIPARA, ALAKODE.

¶13

GEORGE JOSEPH, VETTUVAZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O. NELLIPARA, ALAKODE-670 571.

¶14

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MARINA SHOPPING CENTRE, NATINOAL HIGHWAY, TALIPARAMBA.

¶15

ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

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

M.A.C.A. 652 of 2003

Dated: JUNE 7, 2010

JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 1581/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, December 23, 2002, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,08,055/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶23

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The claimant was a Seaman in Merchant Navy and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. On January 21, 1996 the claimant was riding his scooter along the Kannur - Chirakkal public road at about 3.30 p.m. At that time, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-13-B/1107 driven by the 1^st respondent came from the opposite side and dashed against the scooter of the claimant at Podikundu. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by 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 jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶24

M.A.C.A. 652 of 2003

¶25

¶26

The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

¶27

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending jeep filed a written statement admitting the accident, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. The 3^rd respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, in its written statement admitted the policy.

¶28

PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A36 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,08,055/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

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

¶30

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, driver of the offending jeep is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶31

M.A.C.A. 652 of 2003

¶32

¶33

The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A4, copy of the wound certificate, Ext.A5 discharge card issued from the Koyili Hospital, Kannur, Ext.A6 medical certificate issued from the City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre, Mangalore, Ext.A7 treatment certificate and Ext.A10 disability certificate issued from the Koyili Hospital, Kannur:-

¶34

fracture of right tibia and fibula.

¶35

fracture of neck of 5^th metacarpel right hand.

¶36

lacerated wound on the leg, eyebrow and abrasion on the chin.

¶37

Ext.A10 certificate of disability shows that he has a permanent disability of 20%.

¶38

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,08,055/-.

¶39

The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-

¶40

transportation expenses	-	Rs.750/-
bystander's expenses	-	5,100/-
extra nourishment	-	1,500/-
loss of earnings	-	60,000/-
treatment expenses	-	5,705/-
pain and suffering	-	15,000/-
future loss of earnings	-	1,20,000/-

¶41

The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement

¶42

M.A.C.A. 652 of 2003

¶43

¶44

of the compensation for the disability caused, loss of amenities and future prospects. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-, adopted a multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs.1,20,000/- for the disability caused. The claimant has produced documents to show that he was working as a Seaman earning ,ore than 5000 Dollars per month. In the absence of evidence to show the exact salary of the claimant, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in fixing his monthly salary as Rs.10,000/-. The percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal as 10% also appears to be reasonable. Therefore we are of the view that Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused is reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads also, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.

¶45

There is another aspect in this case. For the loss of amenities and future prospects in life, no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that a compensation f Rs.30,000/- will be reasonable on this count.

¶46

Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the

¶47

M.A.C.A. 652 of 2003

¶48

¶49

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.

¶50

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶51

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

¶52

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶53

mt/-

Othayoth Govindraj v. Manoj Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Othayoth Govindraj v. Manoj Joseph

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

State of Kerala Vs Brahmagiri B Estate

Mufeeda Vs P.P.Hamza

Abdul Fathah.T. Vs Abdul Abbas

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Roby Payuva

Peethambaran Vs T.a.Anandakumar

Rejina Mary Vs K.Venkidukumar