Partly allowed

Muhamedali v. Parancheri Abdulsamad

Kerala HC10 Jun 2011MACA/969/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, a motorcycle pillion rider, appealed against the compensation quantum awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a negligent accident. The Court reduced the monthly income assessment for calculation but increased compensation for disability and loss of amenities, enhancing the total award and adjusting the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to ` 1,56,048/- (original ` 76,788/- plus additional ` 79,260/-); interest increased to 7.5% per annum; insurer directed to deposit amount.

Muhamedali Vs Parancheri Abdulsamad — 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

FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

MACA.No. 969 of 2005

¶6

---------------------OPMV.1865/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶7

APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

MUHAMEDALI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MANUKOYA, CHENKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KAVALAMUKKATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

PARANCHERI ABDULSAMAD, S/O. UMMER, P.O. PORUR, WANDOOR (VIA) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (RIDER).

¶14

GOPALAKRISHNAN, KAVUMTHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE P.O. KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DRIVER).

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

smvd

¶19

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

¶20

================== M.A.C.A. No. 969 of 2005

¶21

================== Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2011

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Barkath Ali, J.

¶24

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1865/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated November 10, 2004 awarding a compensation of ` 76,788/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

¶25

The accident happened on September 22, 2001 at about 9.40 a.m. at Mundayil. While the claimant was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-10/J 6108 from Palakode to Poolakal, due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle (the first respondent), it overturned and he sustained serious injuries. Alleging negligence against the first respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 1,50,000/-.

¶26

MACA 969/2005

¶27

¶28

Respondents 1 and 2, the rider and the owner of the offending motor cycle, remained absent and they were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending motor cycle, filed a written statement admitting the policy. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of 76,788/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and a cost of 1,000/-. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

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

¶30

The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent is not seriously challenged in this

¶31

MACA 969/2005 3

¶32

appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation.

¶33

The claimant sustained the following injuries in the

¶34

accident:-

¶35

1. Swelling deformity right thigh.

¶36

1. Grade I commutated compound fracture right femur.

¶37

1. Bodily injuries.

¶38

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `

¶39

76,788/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as

¶40

under:-

¶41

Transportation expenses	:	`2,000
Extra nourishment and	:	`3,000
bystander's expenses.
Medical expenses	:	`15,888
Pain and suffering	:	`10,000
Disability	:	`45,900
		------------------
Total	:	`76,788 =======

¶42

The counsel for the claimant argued that no

¶43

compensation was granted for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. He sought enhancement of compensation

¶44

MACA 969/2005 4

¶45

for the disability caused and on other heads.

¶46

The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as 1,500/-, took the percentage of disability as 18%, as shown in Ext.X1 disability certificate, adopted multiplier of 17 and awarded a compensation of 45,900/for the disability caused. According to the claimant, he was a coolie earning 3,500/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that his monthly income can reasonably be fixed at 3,000/-. Percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal as 18% and multiplier adopted as 17 are found to be reasonable. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of 1,10,160/- ( 3,000/- x 12 x 17 x 18%) Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of ` 64,260/- on this count.

¶47

No compensation was seen awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of `15,000/- would be reasonable on

¶48

MACA 969/2005

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of ` 79,260/-. 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. 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.

¶52

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶53

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE.

¶54

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

¶55

Muhamedali v. Parancheri Abdulsamad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhamedali v. Parancheri Abdulsamad

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

K.Narayani Vs T.Oommen Panicker

P.Ayyappan Vs T.Oommen Panicker

P.G.Mohanan Vs T.P.Vinod

Shaju @ Shaiju Vs T.B.Anwar

Jinesh Vs Jose

Binu E.D. Vs Siju P.C.and Others