Dismissed

V.S.Sheetal v. Nama Ashish Premsingh

Kerala HC8 Nov 2013MACA/255/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court held that the appellant, a track cyclist injured in a motor accident, failed to prove regular income or loss of earning capacity. Consequently, it upheld the Tribunal's award finding no merit in the claim for enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; no enhancement of compensation is granted.

V.S.Sheetal Vs Nama Ashish Premsingh — 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.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 255 of 2010 ( )

¶6

------------------------(OP(MV)NO. 724/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶7

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶8

V.S.SHEETAL,

¶9

D/O.VIJAYACHANDRAN NAIR, V.S.HOUSE, PALACE NAGAR, MENAMKULAM, THEKKUMBHAGOM, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, .

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (TVM) SRI.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. NAMA ASHISH PREMSINGH, LECTURER, LNCPE, KARYAVATTOM,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. USHA T. NAIR,

¶15

D/O.ASHA, VILAYILKULAM, NEAR FCI,

¶16

TC-1/634, MENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM,

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

¶19

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, RAMAKRISHNA BUILDING,

¶20

ARISTO JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶22

SRI.MANU V.

¶23

R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶24

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

sts

¶26

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶27

M.A.C.A. No.255 of 2010

¶28

Dated this, the 8^th day of November 2013

¶29

Judgment

¶30

Ramakrishnan, J.

¶31

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.724/02 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, is the appellant herein. She filed the petition for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- on various heads as follows :

¶32

MACA No.255/10

¶33

¶34

*Head*	*Amount ₹*
*Medical and incidental* *expenses*	*20,000.00*
*Transportation to hospital*	*1,000.00*
*Extra nourishment*	*1,500.00*
*Engaging a bystander*	*700.00*
*Damage to clothing*	*500.00*
*Pain and sufferings*	*15,000.00*
*Loss of amenities*	*25,000.00*
*Total*	63,700.00

¶35

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come before this Court, claiming enhanced compensation.

¶36

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the insurance company.

¶37

Though the first respondent was served with notice in the delay condonation application along with the intimation regarding filing of the appeal, he did not appear. So, further notice to him was dispensed with. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Since the liability was admitted by the insurance company, the appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 as well.

¶38

MACA No.255/10

¶39

¶40

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a track cyclist aged 18 years at the time of accident and she was participating in various competitions and getting cash awards, but on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she could not participate in such competitions and she suffered disabilities as well. But, no amounts were awarded under the heads 'loss of earnings' and 'loss of earning power'. Further, being a girl aged 18 years, the amount awarded under the head loss of amenities in life is also on the lower side. So, she is entitled to enhancement of compensation on all heads.

¶41

The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that she did not suffer any permanent disability and she has no permanent income as well. So, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by her, is just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.

¶42

We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail.

¶43

MACA No.255/10

¶44

¶45

Except stating that the appellant was a track cyclist,

¶46

there is no evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to prove that he was having any regular income. Even the counsel for the appellant has submitted that her income is only the award amounts obtained from winning the competitions participated by her. But, that cannot be treated as a regular income, nay income itself. Further, there is no evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to show that during this period, there was any competition held and she could not attend the same because of the injuries sustained by her in the accident as well. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in not awarding any amount under the head 'loss of earnings' during the period of treatment as she did not suffer any loss due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The disability certificate shows that there is no permanent disability suffered by her. The only injuries suffered by her are extracted in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Tribunal, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :

¶47

MACA No.255/10

¶48

¶49

“The medical records produced on the side of the petitioner would show that she had sustained Class II fracture of left central incisor, Class III fracture of upper central and lateral incisor and Grade I mobility of + and that she was treated conservatively in the Medical College Hospital and Dental College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.”

¶50

There is no case for the appellant that any of her teeth fractured were removed. Further, there is no evidence to show that this has caused any disfigurement to the appellant, as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the absence of any permanent disability being caused, affecting her earning capacity, she is not entitled to get any amount under the head 'loss of earning capacity' and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in not awarding any amount under that head. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects in the right perspective and awarded a reasonable amount of Rs.25,000/under the head 'loss of amenities' in life though she did not suffer any permanent disability. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal is to be just and proper, considering the nature of injuries and treatment undergone by her. Under such circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to get enhancement of compensation

¶51

MACA No.255/10

¶52

¶53

awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶55

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶56

K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶57

sta

¶58

MACA No.255/10 7

¶59

MACA No.255/10 8

V.S.Sheetal v. Nama Ashish Premsingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Sheetal v. Nama Ashish Premsingh

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

P.v.Gangadharan Vs the Special Tahsildar (L.a.)

Sudheep Vs Director General of Police

Kerala State Insurance Department Ekm Vs v.Vsavitha and Others

K.v.Joseph Vs Biju Mathew

State of Kerala Vs C.K. Parangoden

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs P. Jayarajan and Another