Dismissed

T.P.Satheesan Pillai v. v.a.Noorjahan

Kerala HC17 Feb 2011MACA/610/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order and set aside the compensation award. The Court enhanced the compensation towards disability, loss of amenities, and loss of earing, directing the insurance company to pay an additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order is set aside. An additional sum of Rs.9,000/- is granted towards disability, loss of amenities, and loss of earning, with interest.

T.P.Satheesan Pillai Vs v.a.Noorjahan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 610 of 2005()

¶6

---------------------OPMV.1260/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

T.P.SATHEESAN PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PONNAPPAN PILLAI, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.NITHYA.K.

¶11

SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

V.A.NOORJAHAN, W/O. P.P.H.KABEER, FATHIMA MANZIL, CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶15

SADIQ, S/O. ALI, VELEEPARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD NO.10, NETTOOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE UNITED INDIA INSURNACE COMPANY

¶17

LIMITED, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN-31.

¶18

ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.610 OF 2005

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Balakrishnan, J.

¶25

The claimant is in appeal. When this appeal came up for hearing, Adv.S.Mammu has taken notice on behalf of the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

¶26

The appellant herein sustained injuries in a motor accident which took place on 5/3/1998. The car which hit the appellant was insured with the 3^rd respondent. After analysing the evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had sustained fracture on the right patella and also other injuries, the compensation awarded for disability and loss of amenities is too meagre. The learned counsel also submitted that towards attendant expenses only Rs.2,000/- was granted. The appellant was in POP cast from 18/3/1998 to 23/4/1998. On the day of

¶27

MACA.No.610/2005 2

¶28

accident the appellant was admitted in the hospital (5/3/1998) and was discharged on 11/3/1998.

¶29

On going through the judgment, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation in respect of the medical expenses, for expenses incurred for transport to hospital and for pain and suffering. With regard to the attendant expenses, instead of Rs.2,000/- it can be enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. Towards loss of income for two months, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the further fact that he was in POP cast nearly for 45 days, it is reasonable to assume that because of the injury he might have been prevented from going for work for three months and thus towards loss of earning he can be given Rs. 9,000/- in stead of Rs.6,000/-.

¶30

Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal should have awarded atleast 50,000/- as compensation for disability and also towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, no disability certificate was produced nor is there any other evidence to substantiate that contention. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company

¶31

MACA.No.610/2005

¶32

¶33

submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and that no enhancement should be given. It is seen that as compensation for alleged disability and loss of amenities and enjoyment, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rs.5000+Rs.5000). Since the appellant had sustained fracture to right patella, total sum of Rs.15,000/- can be granted under the heads mentioned above instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the court below. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get a total further sum of Rs.9,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the MACT. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 7 ½ p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. No costs.

¶34

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶35

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶36

dpk

T.P.Satheesan Pillai v. v.a.Noorjahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Satheesan Pillai v. v.a.Noorjahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Chacko C.NO.3722, George Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kurup Janardhana Kurup Vs State of Kerala

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji Vs the Special Deputy Collector (La)

State of Kerala,Rep.by Spl.Tahsildar Vs K.Appukuttan Pillai

Neelakandan Nair Vs State of Kerala