Allowed

Rajesh A.N. v. C.O.Antony

Kerala HC9 Mar 2012MACA/1109/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a businessman injured in a motor accident. The Court increased disability compensation, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earning, and bystander expenses based on a 10% disability assessment and reconstructed monthly income.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award modified with an additional amount of Rs.42,070/- towards disability compensation, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earning, and bystander expenses.

Rajesh A.N. Vs C.O.Antony — Insurance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/19TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 1109 of 2006 (F)

¶7

OPMV.755/1999 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

RAJESH. A.N., S/O.A. NARAYANAN, ALEKKATT HOUSE, PARAKULAM ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶11

SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SABU SREEDARAN SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. C.O. ANTONY, CHATHELY HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY P.O., KANNIKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2. ANTO. V.D., S/O. DEVASSY,

¶15

VANCHIPURA HOUSE, VELAYANADU,

¶16

VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

3. THE MANAGER,

¶18

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.27,

¶19

MANAPPAT BUILDING, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR.

¶20

R3 BY ADV.SRI.A.R.GEORGE

¶21

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ===================== M.A.C.A. NO. 1109 of 2006

¶24

===================== Dated this the 9^th day of March 2012

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

¶27

A businessman who sustained comminuted fracture to shaft of right femur, fracture to right hand and fracture to nasal bone etc. did not award him adequate compensation under the various heads claimed by him. According to him, the Tribunal took only a low monthly income for determining the disability compensation and compensation for loss of earning. He complains that though the Doctor had certified permanent disability suffered by him to be 20%, the learned Tribunal took only 10% for the purpose of fixing the disability compensation.

¶28

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Swathi Das and the learned standing counsel Mr. A.R.Goerge for the Insurance Company.

¶29

According to Mr.Swathi Das, the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation to the appellant. But according to Mr.A.R.George it is reasonable compensation that has been

¶30

MACA 1109/2006

¶31

-2-

¶32

awarded by the Tribunal and there is no warrant for giving any increase.

¶33

We have given our anxious consideration to the rial submissions addressed at the bar. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award. We feel that there is some genuineness in the grievances voiced by the appellant. The appellant being a businessman, the learned Tribunal could have taken the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/- per month. So also, we are of the view that nature and gravity of the injuries is such that the appellant would have been completely incapacitated from doing any work for a period of six months. According to us, compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc. will have to be enhanced. So also we find that the learned Tribunal could have taken 10% to be the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. When disability compensation is reworked adopting the percentage of disability at 10% and the monthly income of Rs.2000/-, the appellant becomes eligible for additional disability compensation to the extent of Rs.16320/-. We award that

¶34

MACA 1109/2006

¶35

-3-

¶36

amount to the appellant towards disability compensation.

¶37

According to us, the appellant has not been awarded proper compensation for pain and suffering. We award to the appellant Rs.10,000/-- more towards compensation for pain and suffering. So also, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.3000/presently awarded towards loss of amenities and the pleasures in life is too low. We award Rs.7,000/- more towards loss of amenities. Towards by-stander's expenses, the appellant has not been awarded adequate compensation. According to us, towards by-stander's expenses, the appellant could have been awarded at the rate of Rs.150/- per day. This means that we have to award Rs. 1250/- more. We award to the appellant that amount towards by-stander's expenses. As already stated, the appellant could not do any work for a period of six months. Hence towards loss of earning, the appellant will have to be awarded a further amount of Rs.7500/-. We award to the appellant that amount towards loss of earning.

¶38

Thus in total the appellant is eligible to get an amount of Rs.42,070/-(Rupees forty two thousand and seventy only) over

¶39

MACA 1109/2006

¶40

-4-

¶41

and above what was awarded by the Tribunal. This additional amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award shall

¶43

stand modified as above. No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶46

Sd/A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶47

ks.

¶48

True copy

¶49

P.s.to Judge

Rajesh A.N. v. C.O.Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh A.N. v. C.O.Antony

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

K.v.George Vs State of Kerala

R.Ayyanadar Karthik Vs State of Kerala

Cyriac Joseph Vs State of Kerala

National Insurance Company Limited Vs D.Kunhibi

Vishnu S/O.Rajan Vs Mohammedali

Unitd India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramla