Allowed

Shereef v. P.H.Ali

Kerala HC12 Mar 2012MACA/1527/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, finding it inadequate. The court enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earning. It also corrected the disability percentage and recalculated compensation for permanent disability, ordering a total additional payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Award modified with additional sum of Rs. 85,540/- for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earning, and permanent disability, carrying interest at 7% per annum.

Shereef Vs P.H.Ali — 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

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/22ND PHALGUNA 1933

¶7

MACA.No. 1527 of 2006 (A) ------------------------(OP(MV) 2365/2001 of MACT,THRISSUR)

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER::

¶9

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

¶10

SHEREEF, S/O. BUHARI,

¶11

RESIDING AT THERUVATH KOPARA HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

¶13

SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶14

SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R

¶15

SRI.JIBU P THOMAS

¶16

SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL

¶17

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS::

¶18

1. P.H. ALI, RESIDING AT PANDALAN HOUSE, PALAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

2. MURALIDHARAN K., S/O. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKUMPURAM HOUSE,

¶20

P.O. CHATHAMANGALAM, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶21

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶22

R2 BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN R2 BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

DST

¶25

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

¶26

MACA. No. 1527 of 2006

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2012

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

¶30

The appellant who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 3-4-2001 approached the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of 3,50,000/- under various heads against which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 2,07,010/-. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge.

¶31

Allegedly, while the appellant was riding a motorcycle, he was hit down by a jeep coming from the opposite direction. The learned Tribunal fixed liability on the second respondent who was the driver of the jeep. As the jeep was covered by a valid policy issued by the third respondent Insurance Company, the third respondent was directed to pay the amount.

¶32

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶33

MACA. 1527/06

¶34

-2-

¶35

and the learned counsel for the third respondent. We have also perused the impugned award.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant took us to the relevant portion of the award which details out the injuries of the appellant. The appellant sustained Type III grade fracture to both bones of his right leg. The fractured tibia was protruding outside. There was fracture to the right radious also. There was a compound injury on the right knee and a large lacerated wound involving front parietal scalp. He was hospitalised for about 51 days. As compensation for pain and suffering the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 20,000/-. Considering the gravity of the injuries sustained and the period of hospitalisation, we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for pain and suffering. Therefore we award an additional sum of 10,000/- on that count.

¶37

Towards loss of amenities the learned Tribunal awarded a

¶38

MACA. 1527/06

¶39

-3-

¶40

sum of 15,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is too low. Presumably the appellant might have been forced to take rest at least for a period of nine months. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that some more amount could have been awarded as compensation for loss of amenities. Thus we award an additional sum of 10,000/on that count.

¶41

According to the appellant, he was an employee of a Parcel Service earning a monthly salary of 6000/-. But the learned Tribunal fixed his monthly income at 2000/-. The accident was of the year 2001 and the appellant was aged 32. Hence we fix the monthly income of the appellant at 3000/-. Presumably he might not have been able to do any job for a period of nine months. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 12,000/- towards loss of earning for six months at the rate of `2000 per month. Towards loss of

¶42

MACA. 1527/06

¶43

-4-

¶44

earning for nine months we award an additional amount of `15,000/-.

¶45

As the accident occurred in the year 2001, bystanders expenses at the rate of 200/- could have been awarded. Hence towards bystanders expenses for 51 days we award an additional sum of 7,700/-.

¶46

Ext.A16 disability certificate was pressed into service and it was proved through PW-2. Ext. A16 shows that the appellant has a disability of 22%. The learned Tribunal converted the same to whole body disability and fixed the same at 12%. Considering the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the residual disability can be fixed at 15%. If compensation for personal disability is recalculated fixing the monthly income as above and adopting the percentage of disability as 15 as well as the correct multiplier, the compensation for loss of dependency will come to

¶47

MACA. 1527/06

¶48

-5-

¶49

`91,800/-. As the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of

¶50

48,960/- the appellant will become entitled to get the additional sum of 42,840/- as compensation for permanent disability. Since the award amount under other heads are reasonable we are not disturbing the same. Thus in total the appellant becomes entitled to additional sum of `85,540/- over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The additional amount awarded will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till date of payment.

¶51

The appeal is allowed and the award shall stand modified as above.

¶52

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶53

(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)

¶54

ksv/-

Shereef v. P.H.Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shereef v. P.H.Ali

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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs D.Kunhibi

Vishnu S/O.Rajan Vs Mohammedali

Unitd India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramla

Parukuttyamma Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs Moorthi.P.

Secretary, Darul Uloom Association Vs the District Collector & Another