Allowed

Anastin E.J. v. Samkutty Samuel

Kerala HC12 Nov 2013MACA/1851/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 30,000 for the appellant injured in a motor accident. Relying on precedent, the Court held no separate head exists for permanent disability beyond loss of earning power and amenities. An additional Rs. 20,000 with interest was granted.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company was directed to pay an additional compensation of Rs. 20,000 with interest at 9% per annum within two months.

Anastin E.J. Vs Samkutty Samuel — 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 &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/21ST KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 1851 of 2013 ()

¶7

(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 586/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM DATED 6.4.2013)

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P(MV):-

¶9

ANASTIN E.J. AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, ELIVENTHINKAL HOUSE, MUTTICHOOT KARA, VADAKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.P.VISWANATHA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P (MV):-

¶12

1. SAMKUTTY SAMUEL A.I VISMAYAM APARTMENTS, VYTTILA KARA POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM- 682 021

¶13

2. SUJA VARTGHESE,AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.SAMKUTTY SAMUEL, A.I VISWAYAM APARTMENTS, VYTTILA KARA, POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM- 682 021

¶14

3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISION NO 10, FLT NO 101-106, N.I BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI PIN- 110 001.

¶15

4. PADMAVATHY P.K, 78/91, (DELETED) KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA, EZHIKKARA, N.PARAVUR- 687 002

¶16

KKS

¶17

MACA.No. 1851 of 2013 ()

¶18

5. SURESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, (DELETED) NEDUMPILLY HOUSE, NETTOOR KARA, MARADU VILLAGE, THRIPUNITHURA- 682 021

¶19

6. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD (DELITED) DIVISION NO 10, FLAT NO 101-106, N-1 BMC HOUSE, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI PIN 110 001

¶20

*DELECTED

¶21

RESPONDENT NOS. 4,5 AND 6 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.13 IN I.A NO. 2773/2013 IN MACA 1851/2013.

¶22

R3 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE,STANDING COUNCIL

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

KKS

¶25

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶26

==================

¶27

M.A.C.A.No. 1851 of 2013

¶28

==================

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶30

S.Siri Jagan, J.:

¶31

The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V).No.586/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disabilities suffered by him in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent, driven by the 2^nd respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as

¶32

follows:

¶33

	Head of claim	Amount awarded `
1	Loss of earnings	16,000.00
2	Transportation to hospital & back	2,000.00
3	Damage to clothes & articles	500.00
4	Extra nourishment	4,000.00
5	Medical expenses	265,000.00
6	Bystander's expenses	4,000.00
7	Pain and suffering	40,000.00
8	Loss of earning power	86,400.00
9	Loss of amenities & enjoyment in life	10,000.00
	Total	4,27,900.00

¶34

m.a.c.a.1851/13 - : 2 :-

¶35

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

¶36

The first contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for continuing and permanent disciplinary. The second contention is that compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life of ` 10,000/- is on the lower side. The appellant also disputes the fixation of monthly income by the Tribunal.

¶37

We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company also.

¶38

As far as the monthly income is concerned, although the appellant produced Ext.A8 certificate from an alleged employer and examined himself as PW1, Ext.A8 has not been properly proved by examining its author. The accident was on 13.1.2009. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal fixing a notional monthly income of ` 4,000/- for the appellant in the absence of

¶39

m.a.c.a.1851/13 - : 3 :-

¶40

any reliable evidence regarding the income of the appellant. As far as the contention regarding compensation for continuing and permanent disability is concerned, we note that the Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of earning power and loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to compensation under a third head of permanent disability in view of the decision of this Court in George v. E.T.Thomas & others , ILR 2013 (1) Ker. 559. However, we find that the Tribunal has accepted 10% permanent disability, despite which, only 10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities in life. We are of opinion that the doctor certified 15% disability, which would certainly affect his personal life to a great extent. Therefore, we are inclined to enhance the compensation for loss of amenities in life to 30,000/- from ` 10,000/-. Despite the persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation under all other heads. Therefore, we are not inclined to enhance compensation under

¶41

m.a.c.a.1851/13 - : 4 :-

¶42

the other heads. Resultantly, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of ` 20,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. That amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of payment. Two month's time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount as well.

¶43

With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶45

Sd/sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶46

///True copy///

¶47

P.A. to Judge

Anastin E.J. v. Samkutty Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anastin E.J. v. Samkutty Samuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjurajan Vs P.T.R.Arumugham

Esi Corpn. & Another Vs M/S. House of Foods & Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Kesavadasan K.K Vs T.R.Sikhilegan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs K.K.Chandran

Mohammed Abdulla Rifayath C.H (Minor) Vs Mohammed Sajid