Partly allowed

Noble C.Paul v. Saju Joseph

Kerala HC23 Jun 2010MACA/660/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 2,67,500. High Court held original award reasonable for disability but inadequate for loss of amenities, enjoyment of life, and disfigurement. Award enhanced by Rs. 25,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities, enjoyment of life, and disfigurement; total enhanced to Rs. 2,92,500./

Noble C.Paul Vs Saju Joseph — 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 &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932

¶6

MACA.No. 660 of 2004()

¶7

---------------------OPMV.992/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANT:PETITIONER

¶9

¶10

NOBLE C. PAUL, AGED 28, S/O. PAUL, CHITTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ENANALLOOR, AYAVANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

SAJU JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THADIYAMBADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

K.K.JOSE,

¶16

KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, THADIYAMPADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE, KANNANKERI ESTATE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-31.

¶18

ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE FOR R2

¶19

SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA FOR R3

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

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

M.A.C.A.660 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) 992/1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, October 31, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,67,500/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident.

¶29

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: On December 24, 1998 at about 12°' clock in the noon the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/C 6231 along Muvattupuzha - Thodupuzha road and when he reached at Anikkad, a car bearing registration No.KL-6/A 3933 driven by the 1^st respondent came at a high speed from the opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by the 1^st respondent. First respondent as the driver, 2^nd respondent as the owner and the 3^rd respondent as the insurer of the offending car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant

¶30

M.A.C.A.660 of 2004

¶31

¶32

claimed a compensation of Rs.8 lakhs.

¶33

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

¶34

This O.P. was jointly tried along with another O.P. filed by the pillion rider of the motorcycle who also was injured in the accident and a common award was passed. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced on the side of 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 1^st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,67,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 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 1^st

¶37

M.A.C.A.660 of 2004

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed

¶41

from Ext.A5 copy of the wound certificate issued from the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam:-

¶42

“ lacerated wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.

¶43

multiple lacerated wounds over the right leg and right foot. fracture of right femur, comminuted segmental . Swelling and tenderness of left ankle, fracture both bone. clinically fracture of pelvis.

¶44

lacerated wound of right little finger etc.”

¶45

He was admitted in the hospital on December 24, 1998 and was discharged on February 5, 1999.

¶46

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,67,500/-.

¶47

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

¶48

transportation	-	Rs.4,000/-
damages to clothings	-	500/-
extra nourishment	-	5,000/-
medical bills	-	1,70,000/-
bystander's expenses	-	3,000/-
pain and sufferings	-	25,000/-
disfigurement and deform	ities -	5,000/-

¶49

M.A.C.A.660 of 2004	4
loss of amenities in life	-	10,000/-
continuing disability	-	45,000/-

¶50

The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for the disfigurement caused. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/-, took the permanent disability as 15% as testified by PW.2, the doctor, and as certified in the certificate Ext.A12, adopted a multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.45,000/- for the disability caused. As the claimant was a student aged 23 at the time of the accident, we feel that the compensation awarded for the disability caused is reasonable. Therefore he is not entitled to any enhanced compensation on that count.

¶51

For the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count.

¶52

For the disfigurement caused, Rs.5000/- was awarded which, in our view, is quite inadequate. The Tribunal has seen the claimant and found that the right leg of the injured was swollen with

¶53

M.A.C.A.660 of 2004

¶54

¶55

grotesque appearance. Under these circumstances we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable for the disfigurement caused. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.

¶56

Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 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.

¶57

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶58

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

¶59

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶60

mt/-

Noble C.Paul v. Saju Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noble C.Paul v. Saju 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

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

C.P.Pious Vs Alice Thomas

Padmini Mohanlal Vs Sasi V.V.