Allowed

K.P.Pathrose v. Suku P.K.

Kerala HC5 Apr 2013MACA/2055/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident claimant by recalculating loss of earning capacity based on 19% certified disability instead of the Tribunal's 10% assumption and increased amenities compensation by Rs.5000/-.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.24,280/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, to be deposited by the insurance company within 2 months.

K.P.Pathrose Vs Suku P.K. — 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 BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 2055 of 2006 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.4/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 30-06-2005

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER(S):

¶9

K.P.PATHROSE, S/O. KUNJI KUNJU, KUTTINAL HOUSE, PERINGOLE, KOLENCHERY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. SUKU P.K., S/O. KUNJAPPAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O., THIRUMARADY KOOTHATTUKULAM.

¶13

2. BABU, S/O. ISSAC, KULAKATTU MADATHIL HOUSE, ATHANICKAL, VELIYANNOOR P.O. VELIYANNOOR.

¶14

3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., JOSE TRUST BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD COCHIN.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD

¶16

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

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN

¶18

¶19

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶20

M.A.C.A No.2055 of 2006

¶21

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

JUDGMENT

Siri Jagan, J.

The injured in a motor accident is the appellant herein. He suffered injuries and consequent disability in an accident on 29.11.2000 on account of the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. He filed OP (MV) No.4/2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disabilities suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the second respondent, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

¶26

Loss of earnings	Rs.8000/-
Medical bills	Rs.33,300/-
Transportation charges	Rs.3000/-
Expenses of by-stander	Rs.3000/-
Pain and sufferings	Rs.15000/-

¶27

¶28

M.A.C.A No.2055 of 2006

¶29

Loss of earning capacity Rs.30,000/-
Loss of amenities in life Rs.5000/-
Compensation for disfigurement Rs.5000/-
------------
Total Rs.1,08,000/-
=========

¶30

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

¶31

The appellant submits that the doctor who treated him has issued a disability certificate, certifying 19% disability. The disability certificate was also proved through the doctor who issued the same. Despite the same, the Tribunal arbitrarily adopted only 10% disability for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity, is the contention raised. It is also submitted that the quantum awarded under other heads are also very low. It is the further contention of the appellant that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing Rs.2000/- as the monthly income of the appellant, whereas the employer gave evidence to the

¶32

M.A.C.A No.2055 of 2006

¶33

¶34

effect that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month.

¶35

We have heard the counsel for insurance

¶36

company as well.

¶37

As far as the income of the appellant is concerned, admittedly he was only a casual worker employed under a contractor. So, there is no certainty of continued employment or even employment for all days of the month. As such, in the year 2000, fixation of Rs.2000/- as the monthly income of a casual worker appears to be in order. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶38

5. The appellant suffered the following injuries:

¶39

“Extensive heel pad avulsion left heel exposing calcanium compound fracture distal phalnax left middle finger”

¶40

There cannot be any doubt that the injuries are serious in nature. The doctor has certified that he has 19% disability. He has given evidence to the effect that the limb of the appellant was shortened on account of loss of pad of fat on

¶41

M.A.C.A No.2055 of 2006

¶42

¶43

the heal, which cannot be repaired by grafting fat. He also gave evidence to the effect that the appellant cannot walk without pain since the heel is hypersensitive. The doctor also stated that the disability is likely to affect the free movements of the appellant, which would cause discomfort and inconvenience to him. In view of the categoric evidence of the doctor available on record, we are of opinion that the entire 19% disability ought to have been taken into account for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity. Calculated thus, the appellant would be entitled to a compensation for loss of earning capacity amounting to Rs.59,280/- (2000X12X13X19/1000) instead of Rs.30,000/-. Consequently, under this head, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.19,280/- more. We are also inclined to award Rs.5000/- more as compensation for loss of amenities. We are not inclined to increase compensation under other heads.

¶44

Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to

¶45

M.A.C.A No.2055 of 2006

¶46

¶47

additional compensation of Rs.24,280/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount would carry interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The 3^rd respondent is directed to deposit this amount also within 2 months.

¶48

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶49

sd/-

¶50

S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶51

sd/-

¶52

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JUDGE

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

PA TO JUDGE

¶55

stk

K.P.Pathrose v. Suku P.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Pathrose v. Suku P.K.

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

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

Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs Reghu