Allowed

Siddique Ali,S/O.Mohammedali v. Palekkodan Riyas

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013MACA/1268/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that while physical disability was 60%, earning power loss was 100% due to paraplegia, increasing compensation by Rs. 1,12,400. It also enhanced pain and suffering and awarded Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 1,52,400 awarded with 9% annual interest; insurance company directed to deposit within two months.

Siddique Ali,S/O.Mohammedali Vs Palekkodan Riyas — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 1268 of 2006 ( )

¶6

OPMV.747/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI.

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER.:

¶8

SIDDIQUE ALI, S/O. MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 27 YEARS, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, CHOKKAD P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.:

¶11

1. PALEKKODAN RIYAS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KALIKAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DRIVER).

¶12

**2. A. MOHAMMED, S/O. HYDRU, YOROTH HOUSE, KUTHIKOTHUPARAMBU, OZHUKOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (OWNER). (DELETED).

¶13

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH MANJERI, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

*** RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF PETITIONER/APPELLANT, VIDE ORDER DATED 06/07/2011 IN I.A.1692/2011 IN MACA.**

¶15

R3 BY ADVS. SMT.D.GEETHA, SC, SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN.

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.HARILAL, JJ

¶19

¶20

M.A.C.A No.1268 OF 2006

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2013.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

S.Siri Jagan, J.

¶24

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.747/01 before the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Manjeri has come up in appeal, challenging the award of the Tribunal in that original petition to the extent of limiting the total compensation to Rs.3,21,706/-. The contention is that on account of the accident, both his legs were paralysed and he has difficulty withholding passing of urine. The doctor has certified physical disability of 60%. But according to the appellant, insofar as he is affected by 'Paraplegia' and he is confined to bed his loss of earning power is 100% and therefore he should have been given compensation for loss of earning power for 100%, which has not been done. It is also submitted that as against his claim of Rs.4,000/- per month as monthly income, the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. The further contention of the appellant is that the compensation for pain and suffering awarded namely Rs.25,000/- is too low, considering the fact that the appellant is destined to suffer throughout his life, because of the injuries and consequent disabilities. It is also submitted that the

¶25

¶26

MACA No. 1268/2006

¶27

Tribunal has not awarded any amount as compensation for loss of amenities.

¶28

We have heard counsel for the insurance company as well. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is clear from the evidence adduced before the Tribunal that because of the accident, the appellant has become a 'Paraplegic'. Therefore, although the physical disability is only 60%, the effect of that physical disability on his earning power is 100%. Therefore, we are of opinion that the appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of earning power for 100% disability. But we are not inclined to increase the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal since the appellant has not chosen to adduce any reliable evidence in support of the claim for Rs.4,000/-. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,96,000/- towards loss of earning capacity instead of Rs.1,83,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, under this head, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,12,400/more. We are also satisfied that the appellant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- more under this head. We are also of opinion that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities in life. Altogether, the appellant would be entitled to

¶29

¶30

MACA No. 1268/2006

¶31

Rs.1,52,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred only) as additional compensation. The same would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The respondents are liable to pay the same to the appellant. The 3^rd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months.

¶32

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE

¶34

Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE

¶35

Siddique Ali,S/O.Mohammedali v. Palekkodan Riyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddique Ali,S/O.Mohammedali v. Palekkodan Riyas

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

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M.Devaki Vs Special Tahazildar

Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs Secretary, Trivandru Medical College Hospital Development Society

K.P. Bhadra Vs Shajahan

Balakrishnan Vs James

Carmila Sindhya, Rep. by Her Mother Vs Vinoj @ Vinojkumar K.V.