Allowed

Hariprasad v. K.Devadas

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011MACA/63/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a claimant suffering 14% disability. The benefit of the doubt was increased by increasing from Rs.12,000 and other heads accordingly, the claimant granted. Appeal allowed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 36,000/- awarded; interest for delay period disallowed; third respondent directed to deposit the amount.

Hariprasad Vs K.Devadas — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2011)

¶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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

MACA.No. 63 of 2006() --------------------OPMV.1000/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

¶6

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶7

¶8

HARIPRASAD, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, PARAKALAN, KOZHINJAPARA P.O., CHITTUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶11

¶12

K.DEVADAS, S/O.KUNJAYI, PULIKKAL HOUSE, VALLANGY, PALAKKAD.

¶13

P.R.SAJIKUMAR, S/O.P.V.KESAVAN, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD.

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., CITY BRANCH NO.1, POST BOX NO.3867, DR. NENJAPPA ROAD, NEW VIJAY BANK, UPSTAIRS, COIMBATORE.

¶15

ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R3

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.63 OF 2006

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2011

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Barkath Ali, J.

¶24

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1000/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 28, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.48,750/- for the loss caused to

¶25

him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. He sustained the following injuries in that accident that occurred on April 26, 1997 at about 2.45 p.m. :

¶26

Crush injury left leg and foot, fracture both bones of lower 3^rd left leg, fracture 4^th and 5^th metatarsal, traumatic amputation of 4^th and 5^th toes, degloving injury on the left foot and skin loss.

¶27

The accident happened while the claimant was riding his

¶28

bicycle and when he reached near Sales Tax Check post, Velamthavalam, he was knocked down by a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL5A/9186 driven by the first respondent. Alleging negligence against the

¶29

first respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under

¶30

MACA.No.63/2006 2

¶31

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

¶32

Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending lorry remained absent before the Tribunal. The third

¶33

respondent, the insurer of the offending lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy.

¶34

Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 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. 48,750/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.500/-. 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

¶37

MACA.No.63/2006 3

¶38

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

¶39

entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶40

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,750/-.

¶41

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

¶42

Transport to hospital - Rs. 500/Extra nourishment - Rs.1,500/Damage to clothing - Rs. 750/Bystander expenses - Rs.4,500/Others-Medical exp. - Rs.12,500/Loss of studies - Rs. 2,000/Loss of mental agony - Rs. 1,500/Pain and suffering - Rs.12,000/Disability - Rs.13,500/-

¶43

Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of

¶44

compensation for the disability caused and for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. He pointed out that no compensation was awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.

¶45

The Tribunal was a boy aged 10 at the time of the accident.

¶46

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,250/-, took the percentage of disability as 6% and adopted a multiplier of 15

¶47

MACA.No.63/2006 4

¶48

and awarded Rs. 13,500/- for the disability caused.

¶49

The claimant has suffered a disability of 14% as revealed from Ext.A9 certificate of which PW2 was one of the signatories. Two of his toes were amputated. Therefore, we feel that the percentage of disability assessed by PW3 as 14% appears reasonable. The monthly income taken by the Tribunal as Rs.1250/- and the multiplier adopted as 15 appear reasonable. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 31,500/- ( 14% x 1250 x 12 x 15). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.18,000/-.

¶50

The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- 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/- would be reasonable on this count.

¶51

No compensation is seen awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under

¶52

MACA.No.63/2006

¶53

¶54

other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same.

¶55

There is a delay of 214 days in filing the appeal. Therefore,

¶56

the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 214 days in filing the appeal.

¶57

In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 36,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimant will not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 214 days in filing the appeal. 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.

¶58

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

¶62

sv.

¶63

MACA.No.63/2006 6

¶64

MACA.No.63/2006 7

Hariprasad v. K.Devadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasad v. K.Devadas

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

Dakshayani K. Vs P.Kunhiraman

Sunny Vs P.K.Ayoob

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Vs Hindustan Univer Limited

B.Vijayaprasad Vs Anil

Arikkeerath Narayani Amma Vs Mattayi Mohammed

Prameela Vs T.B.Babu