Allowed

Mariyam Beevi v. Chacko Abraham

Kerala HC2 Jun 2010MFA/419/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed the appellant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by modifying the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, granting an additional Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life due to injuries sustained by the claimant.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life; Tribunal award modified.

Mariyam Beevi Vs Chacko Abraham — 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 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MFA.No. 419 of 2002() ------------------------------OP(MV).2140/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA

¶6

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶7

---------------------MARIYAM BEEVI, THEKKEL HOUSE, KOORAL P.O., ELANGULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

--------------------------1. CHACKO ABRAHAM, S/O. MATHEW ABRAHAM, THENGUMPALLIYIL PLACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. ALEX CHERIAN, S/O. VARGHESE CHERIAN, MANGALATHU HOUSE, MAMMOODU P.O., HARIJAN COLONEY BHAGOM, MADAPPALLY.

¶12

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CHANGANNECHERRY.

¶13

4. A. VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O. AYYAPPAN NAIR, CHITTATHU HOUSE, PANAMATTOM P.O., KOORALI, PONKUNNAM.

¶14

5. K.K. THOMAS @ ANIL, KUMBUCKAL, POONKUNNAM.

¶15

6. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, RUBBER BOARD OFFICE, KNJIKUZHY.

¶16

7. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R7 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF

¶18

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

================== M.F.A. No. 419 of 2002

¶21

================== Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Barkath Ali, J.

¶24

In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimant in O.P.(MV) No.2140 of 1995 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 26, 2001 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,03,250/- for the loss caused to the claimant, on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident.

¶25

The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:The claimant was a lady, aged 25 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.1,500/- per month as a Tailor. On December 5, 1993 at about 12 O’ Clock in the noon the claimant was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KEK 2435 along K.K. Road. At that time another bus bearing registration No. KRO 8393 came at a high speed from the opposite side and collided head on with the bus in which the

¶26

¶27

MFA 419/02

¶28

appellant was traveling. The claimant and other passengers sustained injuries in the accident. Respondents 1 to 6 as the owners, drivers and insurers of the both the buses are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, as the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the drivers of both the buses. Subsequently, New India Assurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as addl. 7^th respondent in the O.P.

¶29

Respondents 1, 2 and 7 are the owner, driver and insurer of the bus bearing registration No.KRO 8393. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the bus bearing registration No.KEK 2435.

¶30

Before the Tribunal respondents 1, 2 and 5 remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent filed written statement, contending that the vehicle bearing registration No.KRO 8393 was insured with the New India Assurance Company, which was later impleaded as addl. 7^th respondent. Respondents 4 and 6 did not file any written statement. The seventh respondent

¶31

MFA 419/02 3

¶32

filed written statement, admitting the policy.

¶33

This O.P. was jointly tried along with other Original

¶34

Petitions filed by the other injured persons and a common award was passed.

¶35

PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A23 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the contesting respondents. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KRO 8393 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,03,250/-with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization against 7^th respondent. The claimant has now come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶37

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of

¶38

MFA 419/02

¶39

¶40

the first respondent, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. KOR 8393, is not challenged in this apeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶41

The claimant sustained the following injuries, as revealed from Ext.A13 copy of the wound certificate issued

¶42

from Government Hospital, Kanjirappally, Ext.A14 discharge certificate issued from Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and Ext.A16 certificate of disability:-

¶43

“1) Lacerated injury on the centre of right hand cutting the tendon and muscles of right hand.

¶44

1. Communited fracture of metacarpals.

¶45

1. Communited fractures base of Ext.P1 of 2^nd , 3^rd and 5^th fingers.

¶46

There is loss of right little finger. She was admitted on December 5, 1993 and was discharged on December 20, 1993. In Ext.A16 certificate of disability the doctor has noted that there was deformity and pain on right

¶47

¶48

MFA 419/02

¶49

hand. He has assessed the percentage of disability as 30%.

¶50

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,03,250/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as

¶51

under:-

¶52

Loss of earnings : Rs. 3,000/Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,750/extra nourishment, damage to clothing and articles. Treatment and medicine : Rs. 3,500/and bystanders expenses. Pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000/Loss of earning power : Rs. 20,000/and enjoyment of life. Disability caused : Rs. 50,000/-----------------Total : Rs.1,03,250/=======

¶53

The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly sought enhancement of compensation awarded under disability caused and loss of earning power. He has also pointed out that no compensation was awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.

¶54

Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/-

¶55

¶56

MFA 419/02

¶57

would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same.

¶58

In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- . She is entitled to interest @ 9% from the date of petition till realization. The seventh respondent, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

¶59

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶60

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

¶61

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

MFA 419/02

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

¶66

===========~=

¶67

M.A.C.A. No.419 of 2002

¶68

===========~=

¶69

JUDGMENT

¶70

2^nd day of June, 2010

Mariyam Beevi v. Chacko Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyam Beevi v. Chacko Abraham

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

Parvathy Vs C.N.Ravindran

Mohammed Aslam Vs Thachan Kunjan Moidu

Girish Kumar Vs C.Krishnan

Thampi Vs Belbir Singh

Yashoda Vs M.Chandra Rao

Devassia Vs Chacko Abraham