Partly allowed

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

Kerala HC5 Sept 2013MACA/333/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for insufficiency of compensation. The High Court enhanced compensation by Rs. 12,000 including loss of earnings, transportation, treatment, and loss of enjoyment of life, directing insurers to pay equal shares with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant allowed to recover Rs. 12,000 with interest at 9% per annum for additional losses; insurers directed to pay equal proportion.

Thomas,S/O.Baby Vs United India Insurance Co,Ltd. — 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. 333 of 2006 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 446/2000 of MACT,THODUPUZHA DATED 07-02-2005 APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.: -------------------THOMAS, S/O.BABY, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, KANAMALA P.O. ERUMELY. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA.

¶9

XAVIER KURIALASSERY, KURIALASSERY HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O. KARUKACHAL.

¶10

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALA.

¶11

JACOB SEBASTIAN, S/O.PENNAMMA DEVASSIA, ARAPPOZHIKKARA HOUSE, THUDANGANADU P.O.

¶12

BEENA, W/O.JOSY, NANTHIATTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, THIRUMALAKKUNNU BHAGHOM, ERUMELY P.O.

¶13

DAI SEBASTIAN, S/O.PENNAMMA DEVASIA, ARAPPOZHIKKARA HOUSE, OTTALLOOR P.O.

¶14

**R4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY OF THE C.M. APPLN. 480/2006 AND AS PER ORDER DATED 16.08.2012 IN I.A. 2000/2012 IN M.A.C.A 333/2006.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA

¶16

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

¶17

SMV

¶18

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶19

========================= M.A.C.A. No. 333 of 2006

¶20

============================ Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2013

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

All the respondents except the 2^nd respondent are served. Notice to the second respondent is dispensed with in view of the decision I propose to take in the appeal. Respondents 1 and 3 appear through counsel.

¶23

This appeal arises from the award dated 07.02.2005 in O.P.(MV) No. 446 of 2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha ( for short, “the Tribunal”). Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 03.02.2000. He was travelling in a jeep which collided with a bus. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers equally, assessed compensation payable to the appellant at Rs.23,575/- and directed the respondents 1 and 3, insurers of the said vehicles to pay compensation. Appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.

¶24

M.A.C.A No. 333 of 2006

¶25

¶26

Appellant was aged 36 years at the relevant time, a driver and vehicle broker by occupation and claimed to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.2,000/-. It is contended that monthly income fixed and compensation awarded are low.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 contended that there is no scope for any enhancement.

¶28

Having regard to the age of the appellant and his occupation, his monthly income at the relevant time could be fixed at Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded loss of income for two months at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Paragraph 10 of the award states the injuries suffered by the appellant. It includes cornial tear of the left eye. Appellant underwent inpatient treatment for 9 days followed by outpatient treatment. In view of the nature and site of injuries sustained and period of treatment, it is likely that the appellant was not able to work for three months. Loss of earnings comes to Rs.7,500/-. Less Rs.4,000/already awarded, additional compensation payable on that count comes to Rs.3,500/-.

¶29

M.A.C.A No. 333 of 2006 3

¶30

For transportation, only Rs.750/- is awarded. The Tribunal has noticed that the accident occurred at Malankara and that the appellant underwent treatment at Angamaly which is 70 Kms away. It is possible that the appellant had to visit the hospital several times. Hence a further sum of Rs.1,000/- is allowed on that count.

¶31

For treatment expenses, as per Ext.A7 series Rs.4,176/- is awarded. It is likely that the appellant had to incur more expenses but was not able to procure and produce all the medical bills. Hence a further sum of Rs.2,500/- is allowed on that count.

¶32

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life for the reason that no disability consequent to the injury is proved. But I must notice that the injury affected cornia of the left eye and it is likely to cause some discomfort at least, which would result in enjoyment of amenities of life. Rs.5,000/- is allowed on that count. The additional compensation payable comes to Rs.12,000/-. Respondents 1 and 3 are liable to pay that amount in equal proportion with interest at the rate of 9%

¶33

M.A.C.A No. 333 of 2006 4

¶34

per annum.

¶35

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part as under:-

¶36

1. In modification of the award dated 07.02.2005 in O.P.(MV) No. 446 of 2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha the appellant is allowed to recover a further sum of Rs.12,000/(Rupees Twelve thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment from the respondents in the claim petition found liable by the Tribunal.

¶37

1. Respondents 1 and 3, being insurers of the respective vehicle are directed to deposit the said amount in equal proportion in the Tribunal within two months from this day.

¶38

1. Parties shall suffer their cost in the appeal.

¶39

1. Direction regarding deposit/withdrawal of the amount shall be issued by the Tribunal.

¶40

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed. Sd/-

¶41

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶42

//True copy//

¶43

P.A. To Judge

¶44

Smv

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Unnikrishnan Vs Latha Sasidharan

Sabukutty Joy Vs E.P.Jayarajan