Allowed

Shaijan P.Thomas v. Muhammed and Others

Kerala HC24 May 2013MACA/1385/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the court held that the awarded compensation was inadequate. The appellant is granted additional compensation totaling Rs. 9,850/- with interest enhancement, specifically addressing transport, nourishment, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering heads.

What did the court decide?

Awarding additional compensation of `9,850/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim, to be deposited by the insurance company within two months.

Shaijan P.Thomas Vs Muhammed and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2013/3RD JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 1385 of 2011 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 14/2010 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 26-06-2010

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):

¶8

SHAIJAN P.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, PUTHAN PURAYIL, P.O.MYLATTAM PARA, PUTHUPPADI (VIA) THAMARASSERRY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDDEEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

¶11

MUHAMMED, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KUNATH POYIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE-683584.

¶12

SAFEERUDHEEN.K.P.,

¶13

S/O.MOIDEEN.K.P., KUNATH POYIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM.P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE-683584.

¶14

THE SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., E/8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022.

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1385 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dissatisfied with the compensation amount fixed by the court of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(M.V.)No.14 of 2010, the claimant therein preferred this appeal.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that, while he was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-11/V5409 to Eranhipalam and when reached Moozhikkal, mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-11/G-5171 driven by the second respondent hit against the motor cycle and thus the petitioner sustained injuries. According to the petitioner, the first respondent, being the R.C. owner of the mini lorry driven by the second respondent, is absolutely liable to compensate the complainant and the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer of the above vehicle, is liable to indemnify the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.1385 of 2011

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

limited for his claim for a sum of 1,00,000/-. During the trial of the case, though no witness was examined from either side, Exts.A1 to A5 marked from the side of the petitioner and finally the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 9,750/- with 7% interest per annum from 01/01/2010 till the date of deposit of the amount. Aggrieved by the above amount, as the same is inadequate, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

¶25

I have heard Sri.A.V.M.Salahuddeen, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurance company.

¶26

Before going to the details of the claim, it can be seen that the fact that the petitioner sustained injury at 1.30 p.m. on 27/08/2009, because of the accident in which the vehicle owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent, is not disputed. It is also beyond dispute that the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle of R2 and the same covered by a valid policy at the relevant point of time. If that be so, the only

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.1385 of 2011

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

question to be considered is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable or any modification is required. Though the petitioner claimed compensation connected with the above incident, he did not produce any evidence to prove his income. Ext.A2, wound certificate shows that immediately after the incident, which took place at Moozhikkal, he was taken to Nirmala hospital, Kozhikode. But the court has awarded only a sum of 250/- towards transport, which, according to me, is not proper and the said amount requires enhancement and a sum of 500/- will be sufficient under that head and therefore the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of 250/- towards transport. Under the head extra nourishment, though the appellant claimed a sum of 2,000/-, the Tribunal did not award any amount on that count, which, according to me, is not a correct approach and therefore, according to me, a sum of 500/- for extra nourishment is to be fixed. Under the head of loss of earning, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of 1,500/-.

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.1385 of 2011

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, even a coolie will get a sum of 3,000/- per month. If that be so, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the claim of the claimant i.e., a sum of 3,000/- under the head of loss of earnings and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the loss of earning at least for 45 days and therefore, according to me, the appellant is entitled to get 4,500/- towards loss of earnings, but the court has allowed only a sum of 1,500/and therefore the compensation awarded under the head loss of earnings requires modification and accordingly the compensation amount under the head loss of earning is fixed as 4,500/- and therefore he is entitled to get an additional compensation of 3,000/-. It is true that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he had undergone treatment for three days in the said hospital, but the wound certificate shows that he had sustained fracture injuries and therefore it is only just and proper to hold that he had undergone treatment for three days in the hospital and therefore he is entitled to

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.1385 of 2011

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

get a total sum of 600/- being the bystander's expense. As the petitioner has not produced any bill towards treatment expenses, I find no reason to modify the amount awarded under that head. It is relevant to note that for the pain and suffering, though the claim was 35,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of 7,000/which, according to me, is not proper and sufficient. As per Ext.A2 wound certificate, it can be seen that the petitioner has sustained closed fracture injury of the 5th MC base +5th MT neck and P3 little toe right + lacerated wound deep 4th web space (Rt) hand. Having regard to the above injuries, according to me, under the head of pain and suffering a sum of 12,000/- can be fixed, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. So, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of 5,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. Under the head of loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of 500/- which, according to me, requires modification and the same can be fixed as `1,500/- and

¶36

M.A.C.A.No.1385 of 2011

¶37

: 6 :

¶38

therefore, on that count the appellant is entitled to get an additional sum of 1,000/-. Thus, according to me, the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of 19,600/-. But the Tribunal awarded only a sum of 9,750/- and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get an additional compensation of 9,850/-.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the award dated 26/06/2010 in O.P.(M.V.)No.14 of 2010 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, awarding an additional compensation of `9,850/- with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim and the 3^rd respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the above amount in the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶41

skj

Shaijan P.Thomas v. Muhammed and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaijan P.Thomas v. Muhammed and Others

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 Nalini

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs the Branch Manager, the Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Kochi

A.Hydher Ali Vs the National Insurance Company Limited

Vinitha @ Vineetha Vs Smithesh

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sudhakaran

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Premkili and Others