Allowed

Beeran, S/O.Bava v. N.R.Prabhakaran & Another

Kerala HC13 Mar 2012MACA/1122/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a Motor Accident Claim Appeal where the appellant, a headload worker with severe head injuries including fracture and CSF leakage, challenged the adequacy of the compensation. The Court found the Tribunal's award for pain, suffering, amenities, and continuing discomfort to be insufficient considering the nature of injuries. The Court awarded additional compensation totaling

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned award was modified by awarding additional compensation of ₹26,400 comprising enhanced amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and continuing discomfort,

Beeran, S/O.Bava Vs N.R.Prabhakaran & Another — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

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

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/23RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶7

MACA.No. 1122 of 2007 (B)

¶8

OPMV.661/2004 of M.A.C.T. TIRUR

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

BEERAN, S/O. BAVA,

¶11

KELATHIL HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI, P.O.POOKKAYIL BAZAR TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶14

N.R.PRABHAKARAN, S/O. KRISHNA KURUP,

¶15

KOORIYIL HOUSE, KUMARANPADI, P.O.NIRAMARUTHUR.

¶16

(DRIVER - CUM - OWNER).

¶17

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

¶18

MANJERI. (INSURER)

¶19

R,R1 BY SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR R,R1 BY SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD R,R2 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) R,R2 BY SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶22

M. A. C. A No.1122 of 2007

¶23

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2012

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

¶26

The claimant is in appeal.

¶27

The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a compensation of 3 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 25/07/04. Allegedly while he was walking along the road he was hit down by a motorcyclist. The learned Tribunal fixed primary liability on the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent who was the motorcyclist and the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent Insurance Company who had issued a valid policy was directed to pay the compensation. Against the claim of 3 lakhs a sum of ` 1,25,000/- was awarded as compensation. The adequacy of the compensation is under challenge in this appeal.

¶28

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶29

M. A. C. A No.1122 of 2007 -2-

¶30

and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company. We have also perused the impugned award. The medical records reveal that the appellant sustained the following injuries:-

¶31

1. Periorbital oedema on the left side.

¶32

1. Contusion on the left side of the frontal region.

¶33

Fracture to frontal bone.

¶34

Fracture to mandible.

¶35

Ext.A4 Discharge Summary and Ext.A8 Scan Report

¶36

shows that there was contusion on the left frontal lobe of brain. There was CSF leakage also. Admittedly the appellant was hospitalised for about 14 days. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of 20,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings. The appellant was 57 years old at the time of the accident. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant we award to the appellant an additional sum of 5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering.

¶37

Towards loss of amenities for the period during which the appellant underwent treatment, a sum of ` 5,000/- was

¶38

M. A. C. A No.1122 of 2007 -3-

¶39

awarded by the learned Tribunal. Presumably the appellant might not have been able to move out at least for a few months. Hence, we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for loss of amenities. Thus, we award to the appellant an additional sum of ` 5,000/- on that count.

¶40

We do notice that the accident was of the year, 2004 and the learned Tribunal has awarded bystander's expenses at the rate of 100/- per day for 14 days. As the accident was of the year 2004 we are of the view that the appellant is eligible for bystander's expenses at the rate of 200/- per day for a period of 14 days. Thus the appellant becomes entitled to an additional sum of ` 1400/- as bystander's expenses.

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant was a headload worker earning daily wages between 200-250. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant at 3,000/- which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is too low.

¶42

M. A. C. A No.1122 of 2007 -4-

¶43

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company per contra would submit that as the appellant was 57 years old at the time of the accident the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable. We see force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company. So we are not disturbing the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the compensation for loss of earnings.

¶44

The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for permanent disability or for continuing discomfort. But we notice that on account of the head injury the appellant suffered CSF leakage which may cause problems like loss of sensation of smell, continuing headache etc. We are of the view that the appellant being a headload worker, the aforesaid discomforts may affect his job. So we are of the view that the appellant has to be compensated for the same. Thus we award to the appellant a sum of ` 15,000/- as compensation for the continuing discomfort which would affect the quality of life of the

¶45

M. A. C. A No.1122 of 2007 -5-

¶46

appellant. Thus in total the appellant becomes entitled to ` 26,400/- over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The amount additionally awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

¶47

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.

¶48

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶49

Sd/A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶50

kns/-

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

Beeran, S/O.Bava v. N.R.Prabhakaran & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beeran, S/O.Bava v. N.R.Prabhakaran & Another

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

Parukuttyamma Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs Moorthi.P.

Shereef Vs P.H.Ali

Thresiamma Vs Kochi International Aiport Society

Justin Vs Jacob Shaji

Vijayan Vs Babu