Partly allowed

Nanu K.P. v. Kottool Balakrishnan & Others

Kerala HC31 May 2011MACA/368/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the motor accident claimant's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) compensation award. The Court fixed the claimant's monthly income at a higher figure (Rs. 3,500) based on his employment, modifying the disability compensation. It also increased amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, resulting in an additional total of Rs. 42,500.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 42,500 granted for disability, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities; award of Tribunal modified.

Nanu K.P. Vs Kottool Balakrishnan & Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶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

TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 368 of 2008()

¶7

---------------------OPMV.1467/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY

¶8

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶9

¶10

NANU.K.P., S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S.N.NIVAS, KAVINMOOLA, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

KOTTOOL BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KOTTAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KUTTIYATTOOR AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

CHANDROTH VIJAYAN, KIZHAKKEYIL HOUSE, CHALORA AMSOM, THILANNOOR DESOM, KAPPAD, KANNUR DT.

¶16

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., FORT ROAD, KANNUR.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.368 OF 2008

¶22

¶23

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2011

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Barkath Ali, J.

¶26

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1467/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated July 19, 2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,00,500/- for the loss caused to him on

¶27

account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. He sustained the following injuries in that accident that occurred on May 12, 2001 :

¶28

Degloving injury right foot and ankle.

¶29

Lacerated wound left index finger.

¶30

Abrasion right elbow.

¶31

Fracture 5^th metatarsal and dislocation metatarsal phalanges for III and IV toe.

¶32

The accident happened while the claimant was standing

¶33

outside the gate of K.S.Distillery, Kannur, he was knocked down by a

¶34

lorry bearing Reg.No.KRC 4377 driven by the first respondent.

¶35

Alleging negligence against the first respondent, the claimant filed the

¶36

MACA.No.368/2008 2

¶37

O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,77,000/-.

¶38

Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending lorry remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶39

PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,500/- with interest @ 7% 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.

¶40

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

¶41

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal

¶42

MACA.No.368/2008

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶46

Rs.1,00,500/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as

¶47

under:

¶48

Disability - Rs. 31,500/Pain and suffering - Rs. 22,000/Loss of amenities - Rs. 12,000/Medical expenses - Rs. 32,000/Other eligible counts - Rs. 3,000/-

¶49

Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of

¶50

compensation for the disability caused, for pain and suffering endured

¶51

and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

¶52

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,750/- and took the percentage of disability as 30% as shown in Ext.X1 certificate of the Medical Board and adopted a multiplier of 5 as the claimant was aged 61 at the time of the accident and awarded Rs. 31,500/- for the disability caused.

¶53

MACA.No.368/2008 4

¶54

The claimant was an employee of Cannanore Security Services, Kannur. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,500/-. The percentage of disability as 30% as shown in Ext.X1 and the multiplier of 5 taken by the Tribunal are not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 63,000/- ( 30% x 3500 x 12 x 5). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.31,500/-.

¶55

The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs.22,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering endured would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.

¶56

In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 42,500/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7% per

¶57

MACA.No.368/2008

¶58

¶59

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.

¶60

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶61

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶62

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶63

sv.

¶64

MACA.No.368/2008 6

Nanu K.P. v. Kottool Balakrishnan & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanu K.P. v. Kottool Balakrishnan & Others

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

Selma Vs Kuruvila T.T.

N.P.Abdul Salam Vs Executive Engineer

Fr.Jose John Vs Babu Paul

Shaniba Vs S.Mohanan

Ammukutty Warassiar Vs Subhadra

Mani Vs Joseph