Partly allowed

Unnikrishnan v. Latha Sasidharan

Kerala HC5 Sept 2013MACA/2192/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Motor Accidents Claim Appeal in part. The Court modified the Tribunal's award by enhancing compensation for loss of earnings, treatment, transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of amenities by a total of Rs. 17,000 with 9% interest.

What did the court decide?

Further compensation of Rs. 17,000 with interest at 9% p.a. awarded from the Tribunal; Respondent 3 directed to deposit the amount within two months.

Unnikrishnan Vs Latha Sasidharan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/14TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

MACA.NO. 2192 OF 2010 ( )

¶6

O.P(MV) NO.1585 OF 2006, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, ASHTAMICHIRA DESOM VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, ASHTAMICHIRA PO MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY

¶10

SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESONDENTS:

¶12

1. LATHA SASIDHARAN,KODAPULLY HOUSE, ALAPPAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2. SUDHEESH,S/O.RAVI,NELLIPAPRAMBIL HOUSE, ALAPPAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., SSN SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, NATTIKA PO TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

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

¶19

M.A.C.A. No.2192 of 2010

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 05^th day of September, 2013

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Respondents 1 and are served. The 3^rd respondent appears through counsel.

¶24

This appeal arises from the award dated 27.03.2010 in O.P(MV)No.1585 of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶25

Appellant suffered injuries in a motor accident on 18.02.2006. He was driving a tempo van belonging to him. Lorry driven by the 2^nd respondent hit that tempo van. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent and awarded Rs.27,350/- as compensation.

¶26

The appellant was aged 34 years at the relevant time and claimed that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed his monthly as Rs.2,000/-. It is contended that the monthly income fixed and compensation awarded are low.

¶27

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent contended that no enhancement is required.

¶28

It is not disputed that the appellant was driving a

¶29

M.A.C.A No.2192 of 2010

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

Tempo Van at the relevant time. Hence his claim that he is a driver by occupation can be accepted. Having regard to the age and occupation of the appellant, his monthly income can be fixed as Rs.3,500/-.

¶32

Paragraph 6 of the award states the injuries suffered by the appellant. Exhibits A3 and A4 show that the appellant underwent inpatient treatment at St.James Hospital, Chalakkudy for two days for fracture of transverse process of L1 and L2 Vertebrae. The Tribunal has awarded loss of earnings for three months at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month which I consider, is low. Having regard to the nature and site of fracture, period of treatment undergone and considering the occupation of the appellant, it is likely that the appellant was not able to work for four months. Loss of earnings for four months comes to Rs.14,000/-. Less the amount already awarded additional compensation payable on that count is Rs.8,000/-

¶33

Treatment expenses awarded is Rs.1,150/- based on the medical bills (Rs.1,120/-). It is likely that the appellant was not able to procure and produce all the medical bills. I must notice that the appellant underwent inpatient treatment though for two days in a private hospital. Hence a further sum of

¶34

M.A.C.A No.2192 of 2010

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

Rs.2,000/- is awarded on that count.

¶37

Rs.1,000/- was awarded as transportation charges. It is likely that the appellant had to visit the hospital several times even after discharge from the hospital. Hence a further sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded on that count.

¶38

Compensation awarded for pain and suffering awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.13,000/-. That requires modification though slightly. Having regard to the injuries suffered and treatment underwent by the appellant, a further sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded on that count.

¶39

The Tribunal has observed that since no certificate regarding disability is produced, compensation is not payable on that count. Even if no certificate is produced it is likely that the fracture could cause some discomfort, if not disability to the appellant. It would affect his capacity to earn and enjoy the amenities of life. Hence I am inclined to award Rs.4,000/towards loss of enjoyment of amenities of life. The additional compensation payable comes to Rs.17,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶40

Resultantly the appeal is allowed in part as under:

¶41

(i) In modification of the award passed by the Motor

¶42

M.A.C.A No.2192 of 2010

¶43

-: 4 :-

¶44

Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P(MV) No.1585 of 2006, the appellant is allowed to recover a further sum of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till recovery from the respondents.

¶45

(ii) The 3^rd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within two months from this day.

¶46

(iii) The Tribunal shall issue direction regarding deposit/withdrawal of the amount.

¶47

(iv) Parties shall suffer their costs in the appeal.

¶48

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶49

vsv

Unnikrishnan v. Latha Sasidharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. Latha Sasidharan

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

Venugopalan Nair Vs Saraswathy Amma

Rathi Vs K.K.Ramu

Saneesh Babu Vs Winson P.V.

Neelakantan Nair Vs Indira Devi

Thomas,S/O.Baby Vs United India Insurance Co,Ltd.

Sabukutty Joy Vs E.P.Jayarajan