Dismissed

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

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013MACA/211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a motor accident claim appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ernakulam, the High Court of Kerala found no infirmity in the Tribunal's assessment of compensation. The Court held that `2000/- notional income was appropriate for a ten-year-old girl.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was upheld.

Carmila Sindhya, Rep. by Her Mother Vs Vinoj @… — 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. 211 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.233/2011 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED 12-10-2012

¶7

/APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS N0 OPMV 233/2011 OF MACT ERNAKULAM:

¶8

CARMILA SINDHYA, AGED 11 YEARS REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ANI JASMINE W/O JOY, ODATTUNPARAMBIL (ODATHU) HOUSE, VALLARPADAM MULAVAKADU VILLAGE

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.OMANAKUTTAN

¶10

/RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS IN N0 OPMV 233/2011 OF MACT ERNAKULAM:

¶11

1. VINOJ @ VINOJKUMAR K.V, KORIAPADATH HOUSE,CHERAI P.O,683514

¶12

2. LOVJIN,S

¶13

S/O LATE SRI JANARDHANAN,VELUTHEDATHU HOUSE CHERAI 683514

¶14

3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD PB NO 25, FIRST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD NORTH PARAVUR 683513

¶15

R3 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.HARILAL, JJ.

¶18

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

¶19

M.A.C.A.No. 211 of 2013

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶22

Siri Jagan, J.

¶23

The claimant in O.P(M.V.).No. 233/2011 before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant herein. She was a minor aged 10 years at the time of an accident caused by a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3^rd respondent, in which, she suffered injuries to her head. She suffered the following injuries.:

¶24

Abrasions on the extreminites;

¶25

Black eye, left sided;

¶26

Subgaleal haematoma left frontal and parietal;

¶27

Fracture both bones left forearm

¶28

Fracture of frontal bone;

¶29

Right frontal extra dural haematoma

¶30

Left post parietal Extra Dural haematoma

¶31

Left frontal sub dural haematoma;

¶32

Pneum ocephalus.

¶33

The disability certificate certified disability of 8% to the appellant.

¶34

After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the

¶35

Tribunal awarded compensation on various heads as follows;

¶36

	`
Transportation expenses	1,000.00
Damage to clothing	500.00
Extra nourishment	1,000.00
Expenses for treatment	1,57,756.00
Bystanders expenses	3,200.00
Shock, pain and suffering	20,000.00
Loss of amenities	10,000.00

¶37

M.A.C.A.211/13 - : 2 :- Compensation for permanent disability 28,800.00 Total 2,22,256.00

¶38

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

¶39

Despite our sympathies, considering the injuries and the fact that the appellant is a small girl, we could not find any infirmity in the mode of fixation of compensation by the Tribunal under the various heads. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation payable and there is no infirmity whatsoever in the same. The contention of the appellant is that the fixation of notional income of 2000/- is too low. We are of opinion that the Tribunal could not have fixed notional income at more than 2000/- for a girl aged 10 years. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the M.A.C.A. and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

sdk+

Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

M.A.C.A.211/13 - : 3 :-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Siddique Ali,S/O.Mohammedali Vs Palekkodan Riyas

Balakrishnan Vs James