Partly allowed

Bijoy.S. v. P.N.Kunjukrishna Pillai

Kerala HC14 Jun 2011MACA/552/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging the compensation award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court recalculated the disability compensation based on the claimant's higher fixed monthly income and granted additional relief for uncovered treatment expenses, modifying the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 1,09,600 granted with interest at 7.5% per annum; Tribunal award modified.

Bijoy.S. Vs P.N.Kunjukrishna Pillai — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶3

MACA.No. 552 of 2005() ---------------------OPMV.1298/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM ....................

¶4

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶5

¶6

BIJOY. S., S/O. A. SREEDHARAN, SREE BHAVAN, BHATTATHRIPAD ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O., COCHIN-682 020.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶9

¶10

P.N. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, LOTUS, VELIMALLOR, OYOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

D. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. N. DAMODHARAN ANANDALAYAM, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.

¶12

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM.

¶13

S. ANIL KUMAR, SREE BHAVAN, BHATTATHIRIPAD ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O., COCHIN-20.

¶14

PRASANNAN. D., S/O. DAMODHARAN, ENANIKKAL HOUSE, KADAVOORKARACHERRY, KADAVOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ENSIGN BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3&6

¶17

SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT FOR R4 & 5

¶18

SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI FOR R2

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.552 OF 2005

¶23

¶24

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2011

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Barkath Ali, J.

¶27

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1298/1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. In this appeal, he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 3, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. He sustained the following injuries in that accident that occurred on January 22, 1994 at about 9.30 p.m. :

¶28

Fracture of shaft of left humerus

¶29

Communited fracture of right aetabulam.

¶30

The accident happened while the claimant was returning

¶31

from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL7/F 451. When he reached at Chathannoor, the jeep dashed against a Maruthi van bearing Reg.No.KL-02/8454 driven by the second respondent. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor

¶32

MACA.No.552/2005 2

¶33

Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 9,18,000/-.

¶34

Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the

¶35

offending Maruthi van. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the jeep involved in the accident. Respondents 1, 2 and 6 remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending Maruthi van filed a written statement admitting the policy. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement admitting the accident and contended that the jeep was insured with the sixth respondent Insurance Company.

¶36

PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A29 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi van by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,49,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against respondents 1 to 3. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37

MACA.No.552/2005 3

¶38

Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the

¶39

counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶40

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal

¶41

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the

¶42

second 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.

¶43

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

¶44

Rs.4,49,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as

¶45

under:

¶46

Loss of earning - Rs.20,000/Treatment expenses - Rs.30,000/Transportation - Rs. 5,000/Extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000/Bystander expenses - Rs. 6,000/Pain and suffering - Rs.40,000/Discomforts, inconvenience and loss of amenities - Rs. 40,000/Disability - Rs.3,02,400/-

¶47

Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of

¶48

compensation for the disability caused and on other heads.

¶49

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as

¶50

MACA.No.552/2005 4

¶51

Rs.4,000/- and took the percentage of disability as 35% and adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 3,02,400/- for the disability caused. The claimant was running a Proprietorship concern doing contract work for Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. Exts.A26 and A12 series prove the same. Ext.A19 shows that he was a graduate of Engineering from Calicut University. Taking into consideration the above aspects, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. The percentage of disability as 35% and the multiplier of 18 taken by the Tribunal found to be reasonable. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,78,000/- ( 5000 x 12 x 18 x35%). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.75,600/-.

¶52

The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- for treatment expenses covered by some of the bills Ext.A17 series. The amount covered by the other bills comes to Rs.34,000/- Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and the treatment he has undergone, we feel that an additional compensation of Rs.34,000/-

¶53

MACA.No.552/2005 5

¶54

would be reasonable towards treatment expenses. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.

¶55

In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,09,600/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the enhanced compensation 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.

¶56

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶57

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶58

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶59

sv.

¶60

MACA.No.552/2005 6

¶61

MACA.No.552/2005 7

Bijoy.S. v. P.N.Kunjukrishna Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy.S. v. P.N.Kunjukrishna Pillai

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

Shaji Vs Pradeep

Yogeesh Rao.M. Vs Ashok Kumar M.S.

N.v.Vally Vs M.K.Thahanoon

K.Rajamani Vs K.K.Joses

Nishamol P.N. Vs Joji G.Ambattu

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Unnikrishnan