Allowed

Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Reghu

Kerala HC5 Apr 2013MACA/1993/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a motor accident claims appeal where the appellant challenged the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a 2002 accident. The court enhanced the award for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of earning power, directing the insurance company to pay an additional Rs.20,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of earning power, and amenities; insurance company directed to deposit additional Rs.20,000 with interest at 9% per annum within one month

Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs Reghu — 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 BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶4

MACA.No. 1993 of 2005 ( )

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.970/2002 of M.A.C.T., PUNALUR DATED 19-07-2005

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, ALIAS RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, REKHA BHAVAN, NEDUMPURAM MURI, KOTTAKKAL, KOTTAKKAL VILLAGE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. REGHU, S/O.KALIYAN, MEERA BHAVAN, NEAR PARASAKTHI TEMPLE, VADAKOTTUKAVU, NEDUMPARAMPU.P.O, ALAMCODU.

¶11

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLAM.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

stk

¶15

S.SIRI JAGAN &

¶16

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1993 of 2005

¶18

Dated this, the 5^th day of April,2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Siri Jagan, J.

¶21

The appellant is the injured in a motor accident. The accident was on 10.02.2002. He suffered injuries in the accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with second respondent. The appellant filed O.P. (M.V.)No.970/2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, claiming compensation for the injuries and

¶22

consequent disabilities suffered by him. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts as compensation under various heads;

¶23

Loss of earnings	Rs.2000/-
Transport to hospital	Rs.750/-
Extra nourishment	Rs.750/-
Damage to clothing	Rs.400/-
Medical Bills	Rs.3195/-
By-stander's expenses	Rs.1500/-
Pain and sufferings	Rs.4000/-
Loss of earning power	Rs.2000/- -----------
Total	Rs.14,595/- ========

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.1993 of 2005

¶25

¶26

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. According to the appellant, the compensation under all heads are palpably inadequate.

¶27

We have heard the counsel for the insurance company

¶28

also.

¶29

The appellant suffered the following injuries as stated

¶30

in the award:

¶31

“Lacerated wound over the medical malleolus along the medical border of the left foot upto the big toe, lacerated wound extending from dorsum of the left foot to little toe, contusion over the forehead on the right side and upper central three teeth lost.”

¶32

He was treated in the medical college hospital as an in-patient for 46 days. Split skin grafting was done under local anaesthesia. The Tribunal has fixed his monthly income as Rs.2000/-. But, after having found that he was an in-patient for 46 days, only Rs.2000/- has been awarded towards loss of earnings. We enhance it to Rs.4000/-. Considering the injuries suffered by the appellant, compensation for pain and suffering is increased to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.4000/-. The appellant had gone to the box and stated on oath that he is unable to stand due to weakness of

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.1993 of 2005

¶34

¶35

his leg. Considering the injuries and his evidence, we are of opinion that an amount of Rs.12,000/- can be granted towards loss of earning power, instead of Rs.2000/-. Consequently, an amount of Rs.2000/- is granted for loss of amenities in life also. Adding together, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- over and above what has been been awarded by Tribunal. This amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The 3^rd respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶36

that amount also within one month.

¶37

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶38

sd/-

¶39

S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶40

sd/-

¶41

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JUDGE

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

PA TO JUDGE

¶44

stk

Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Reghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Reghu

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 Krishnan Nadar

Lissie Vs K.D.Kunjappan

Abu Fasil Vs K.K.Vijayakumar

State of Kerala Vs Gopalan

State of Kerala Vs George

K.P.Pathrose Vs Suku P.K.