Allowed

Kiran B.Thaliyeth v. Anilkumar Gupta

Kerala HC1 Mar 2012MACA/477/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident against a tanker lorry. The High Court found the awarded amount for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander expenses, and permanent disability inadequate. It enhanced the total compensation by an additional sum of Rs.14,850 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Award to the appellant by an additional sum of Rs.14,850 over and above the Tribunal's award, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of judgment.

Kiran B.Thaliyeth Vs Anilkumar Gupta — Medical Negligence | 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

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

MACA.No. 477 of 2005

¶7

OPMV.1586/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

KIRAN B. THALIYETH, C/O.LIJO JOSE MATHES, MELPET HOUSE, NO.17/800 BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM, NOW STUDYING AT K.V.G. DENTAL COLLEGE, SULLIA, KARNATAKA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. ANILKUMAR GUPTA, HARIKRUPA, BEGAL CHURCH ROAD, MANGALAORE, KARNATAKA.

¶13

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.M.RAO ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶14

3. K.KARIAPPA, KONKANA GUNDI MANE, ISHWARMANGAL, PATTUR.

¶15

R2 BY SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DCS

¶18

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

¶19

MACA No.477 of 2005

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2012

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Ramakrishna Pillai, J

¶23

Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the injured has come up in appeal.

¶24

Allegedly, while the appellant was riding on the pillion of a motorcycle, it collided with a tanker lorry which came from the opposite direction. Against the claim of Rs.3,36,500/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,19,926/- as compensation under various heads.

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company. We have perused the impugned award also.

¶26

Medical records reveal that the appellant sustained a fracture to the shaft of his right femur and a fracture to the right tibia. The appellant was hospitalised for about 34 days under different spells. Considering the

¶27

nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the learned

¶28

M.A.C.A No.477 of 2005 -:2:-

¶29

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the sum awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering is low. Undoubtedly, the fracture to the right femur and fracture to the right tibia might have caused much pain and this might have continued for few months. So we are of the view that some more amount could have been awarded towards pain and suffering. Hence, we are awarding an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- on that count.

¶30

The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities in life for the period during which the appellant had undergone treatment. Since the amount awarded is reasonable, we are not disturbing the same.

¶31

The appellant was hospitalised for about 34 days. As the accident was of the year 1999, he is entitled to receive compensation towards bystanders expenses at the rate of 150/- per day. As the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- only, the appellant is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.2,750/- towards bystanders expenses.

¶32

M.A.C.A No.477 of 2005

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that

¶35

the treatment of the appellant was in a Hospital at Mangalore and therefore, he had to go to Mangalore for review on different occasions. As the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.3,000/- as transportation expenses, we are of the view that the appellant can be awarded additional sum of Rs.2,000/- on that count. Thus, we are awarding the same.

¶36

Allegedly, the appellant was a B.D.S student and he was aged 21 at the time of the accident. The notional monthly income of the appellant was fixed at Rs.1,250/- per month for computing the compensation for permanent disability, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is too low. As the accident was of the year 1999, we are of the view that the monthly income of the appellant could have been fixed at Rs.1,500/- for computing the compensation for permanent disability. Though there is no cogent evidence regarding the residual disability of the appellant the learned Tribunal had fixed the percentage of disability of the appellant as ten. This is not under dispute. When compensation for permanent disability is recalculated

¶37

M.A.C.A No.477 of 2005 -:4:-

¶38

adopting the correct multiplier and as well as the aforesaid percentage of disability, the appellant will become entitled to get an additional sum

¶39

of Rs.5,100/- as compensation under that head.

¶40

Thus, in total, we award to the appellant an additional sum of

¶41

Rs.14,850/- , over and above what was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The additional amount awarded will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the judgment till the date of realisation.

¶42

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award shall stand

¶43

modified as above.

¶44

s d/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE

¶45

s d/-

¶46

A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

/TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

krj

M.A.C.A No.477 of 2005 -:5:-

Kiran B.Thaliyeth v. Anilkumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran B.Thaliyeth v. Anilkumar Gupta

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

State of Kerala Vs a.Vareed

Subramanian Vs P.Mohandas

M.S.Gopalakrishnan Vs Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Ktm

Varghese Koshy,Thavalathil House,Pta. Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector

Yarinchire Retnakaran Vs the District Collector , Kannur

Kadassery Sekharan Vs the Special Tahsildar (L.a),Kozhikode