Partly allowed

Biju v. C.G.Sudhakaran

Kerala HC8 Jun 2011MACA/71/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced the compensation for permanent disability and loss of amenities, directing the insurer to deposit the increased amount with adjusted interest rates.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified; the insurer was directed to deposit an additional compensation of Rs. 17,800 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.

Biju Vs C.G.Sudhakaran — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

MACA.No. 71 of 2006() --------------------------------OP(MV)NO. .3576/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

¶6

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP.MV.

¶7

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

BIJU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAPPAI, PUTHOOR HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP.MV.

¶11

-----------------------------------------------------------------

¶12

1. C.G.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,KARIYAMPADOM, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2. BABY, S/O.PAPPACHAN, MULLOOR HOUSE, NADAM PADAM, VARANDARAPPILLY, PALAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THRISSUR.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM R3 BY ADV.SMT.R.REMA

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

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

¶19

==================

¶20

M.A.C.A. No. 71 of 2006

¶21

==================

¶22

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Barkath Ali, J.

¶25

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.3576/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 30, 2004 awarding a compensation of ` 66,600/for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶26

The accident happened on October 13, 2000 at about 2.30 p.m. at Kuriachira near Kanal palam. While the claimant was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-8/J 8580 along Thrissur – Ernakulam public road, he was knocked down by a bus bearing registration No.KL-8/B 5556, driven by the second respondent. He sustained the following injuries in the accident:-

¶27

1. Fracture left nasal bone.

¶28

1. Depressed fracture right frontal bone.

¶29

1. Fracture anterior ethmoid.

¶30

1. Haemotoma left maxilla autrum in CT scan,

¶31

1. Fracture little finger left,

¶32

MACA 71/2006

¶33

¶34

1. Proximal phalanx extensor tendon cut left ring finger

¶35

Abrasion dorsum of nose and forehead.

¶36

Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 2,00,000/-.

¶37

Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending bus, remained absent and they were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claimant. Ext.B1was marked

¶38

on the side of the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of 66,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and cost of 1,700/-. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for

¶40

MACA 71/2006

¶41

¶42

the Insurance Company.

¶43

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶44

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ` 66,600/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-

¶45

Loss of earning	:	`4,000
Medical expenses including	:	`23,000
transport to hospital and
bystander's expenses.
Extra nourishment	:	`
Pain and suffering	:	`10,000
Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.	:	`8,000
Permanent disability	:	`21,600 ------------------
Total	:	`66,600 =======

¶46

The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused, for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and on other heads.

¶47

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as

¶48

` 2,000/-, took the percentage of disability as 5%, adopted

¶49

MACA 71/2006 4

¶50

multiplier of 18 and awarded a compensation of 21,600/- for the disability caused. The claimant was a Goldsmith earning 5,000/- per month, according to him. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that his monthly income can reasonably be fixed at 3,000/-. Ext.A8 disability certificate is issued by the Assistant Professor of Orthopedics, Medical College Hospital, Thirssur. He has certified that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 15%. But, taking into consideration the nature of the disability caused, we feel that the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal as 5% is reasonable. As the claimant was aged 27 at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 18 as found by the Tribunal. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of 32,400/(3,000/- x 12 x 18 x 5%). Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of 10,800/- on this count.

¶51

The Tribunal awarded 8,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of 15,000/-

¶52

¶53

MACA 71/2006

¶54

would be reasonable on this count. 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 ` 17,800/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The third 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.

¶56

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶57

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

¶58

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

¶59

Biju v. C.G.Sudhakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju v. C.G.Sudhakaran

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

S.Mohammed Burhanudeen @ Burhanudeen Vs P.Vijayan

P.B.Reghunathan Nair Vs J.Sibichan

Franco Vs Dr.Suresh Jacob

C.Muhammed Asharaf Vs H.Moorthy

H,Iysha Beevi Vs S.Anil Kumar

Jeena Joshy and Others Vs Kailasan @ Sunil and Others